Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rand D. Conger
University of California, Davis
Scholars have suggested that family life may influence childrens attributions
about close relationships. Using a sample of 369 two-parent families with 2
children (a target adolescent in the 8th grade and a sibling aged 10 to 18), we
investigated whether the siblings negative attributions regarding the target
adolescent were associated with mothers and fathers negative attributions
regarding the target adolescent, or the gender constellation and birth order of
the sibling pair. In addition, we used the self-reported negative attributions
of both siblings and adolescents to investigate whether attributions predicted
ones own behavior, or whether the behavior of the partner predicted the
perceivers negative attributions. Structural equation models showed that
mothers and fathers negative attributions regarding the target adolescent
predicted concurrent negative attributions for girls, but not boys. In addition,
siblings negative attributions regarding each other predicted their negative
and positive behavior toward the partner 2 years later. The positive behavior
of the attribution target also predicted the perceivers negative attributions,
but its effect was weaker. Girl sibling pairs were less negative in their attributions than cross-sex sibling pairs and boy sibling pairs. Finally, although
younger siblings were less negative in their attributions than older siblings,
this difference decreased over time. This study advances the knowledge of
negative attributions in close relationships by identifying family correlates of
an understudied, but important, close relationship.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Lisa Matthews, Department of Sociology, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4351. E-mail: matthews@neo.tamu.edu
258
Evidence regarding the important role that attributions play in close relationships continues to accumulate. For example, studies of married
couples show that individuals who interpret a spouses aversive behavior
as intentional or selfishly motivated, or as caused by dispositional characteristics are likely to experience a more conflictual and lower quality
marriage (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham, 2001; Fincham, Bradbury,
& Scott, 1990; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Attributions also predict changes
in marital quality (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987, 1991; Karney & Bradbury,
2000). Although rarely studied, it seems likely that attributions would also
affect the quality of other important family relationships, including sibling
relationships. However, although there are clear differences between
marriages and sibling relationships, it is not unreasonable to assume that
negative attributions (e.g., believing that another persons aversive behavior is intentional) would have a similarly negative effect on the sibling
relationship.
Two sources of child attributions about parents and peers proposed in
the literatureparentss attributions and the behavior of the attribution
target (Bugental & Johnston, 2000; Grusec & Mammone, 1995)would be
likely to influence childrens negative attributions regarding siblings. In
addition, family characteristics, such as the gender constellation of siblings and birth order of children, have been found to influence family
interactional dynamics and could affect negative attributions. However, as
yet there has been little empirical research examining associations between child attributions and these components of family life, and no research to our knowledge examining these factors within sibling
relationships. In the present report we used information from a longitudinal study of two parents and their two children (a target adolescent and
his or her near-age sibling) to investigate whether the siblings negative
attributions regarding the target adolescent are associated with mothers
and fathers negative attributions regarding the target adolescent, and
with the gender constellation and birth order of the sibling pair. In addition, we used the negative attributions of both siblings and adolescents
to investigate the direction of influence between attributions and behavior
(i.e., do negative attributions predict the perceivers own behavior, or does
the behavior of the attribution target predict the perceivers negative
attributions?).
Parents Negative Attributions, AdolescentSibling Interaction, and
Sibling Constellation Factors
We defined attributions in global terms as the individuals assessment that
the attribution target was not generally a good-natured person and that his
259
260
261
262
Our remaining three hypotheses concern the effects of birth order and
sibling gender constellation on negative attributions. Prior studies, discussed earlier, showed that same-sex siblings experience greater warmth
and intimacy in their relationship, compared with opposite-sex siblings,
and that this is especially the case for girls. Thus, our third hypothesis was
that same-sex siblings would show lower mean levels of negativity in their
attributions regarding the target adolescent than opposite-sex siblings and
that girlgirl sibling pairs would be less negative in their attributions than
boyboy pairs. Prior research regarding birth order suggests that younger
siblings view their brother or sister in a more positive light than older
siblings but that the sibling relationship becomes less emotionally intense
over time. Consistent with these earlier studies, our fourth hypothesis was
that younger siblings, compared with older siblings, would show lower
mean levels of negativity in their attributions regarding the target adolescent. However, we also expected to see this difference grow smaller
over time, as the younger siblings matured and became less dependent on
their older brother or sister. Thus, our fifth hypothesis was that the difference in mean attributional negativity between younger and older siblings would be significantly smaller at Time 2 than at Time 1.
METHOD
Sample
The sample for this study was derived from a larger sample of 451 initial
families participating in a 4-year longitudinal study. The Iowa Youth and
Families Project was designed to examine the individual characteristics
and family interactional patterns that contribute to successful adaptation
to rural economic stress. Families were recruited for the study in Year 1
(1989) from 34 public and private schools in north central Iowa. The names
and addresses of all seventh-grade students were obtained from all
schools in communities with populations of 6,500 or less in the identified
counties. Parents were sent a letter explaining the project and then were
contacted by phone. To participate in the study, families had to include
two parents, their seventh-grade child (the target adolescent), and a sibling within 4 years of age of the seventh grader. Few minority families live
in the rural area where the research was conducted; thus, they were not
selected to participate. Of the qualifying families originally contacted, 79%
agreed to be part of the study. In the present analysis, listwise deletion
resulted in a final sample of 369 parents and siblings, and 324 sibling
target adolescent pairs. In our final sample, husbands and wives averaged
13.5 years of education each. Gross per capita income ranged from 0
263
264
educational level, per capita income, and the age of the sibling were used
as control variables. Negative attribution measures were available only in
the second (1990) and fourth (1992) waves of the study; thus, all measures
were taken from these two assessments.
Negative attributions. We measured negative attributions using
three questions. Fathers, mothers, and siblings were asked to report
whether the following three statements characterized the target
adolescent: He/she sometimes does mean things just to irritate
people, When he/she does something that bothers other people, it is
usually just an accident, and He/she is good-natured and always tries
to be helpful and considerate toward others. The adolescent was asked
the same questions regarding the sibling. Responses were made on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The
items were coded so that a high score indicated the presence of negative
attributions (i.e., as indicating negative intent). Reliabilities for the
summed scale ranged from .68 to .75 for mothers and fathers.
Reliabilities for the children were .62 and .75 for siblings, and .63 and
.80 for adolescents, for 1990 and 1992, respectively.
Negativity and positivity in observed behavior. All observer
measures were coded according to the Iowa Family Interaction Rating
Scales (IFIRS; Melby et al., 1989). The IFIRS is designed to uncover patterns
of behavior in the actor.1 That is, rather than assessing discrete behavioral
acts (i.e., counting the number of times an actor says something positive)
or the content of what is actually said, the IFIRS focuses on behavioral
subtext, that is, on gestures, facial expressions, tones of voice, and so on
that convey an impression. Thus, the IFIRS assesses behaviors that are
characteristic of the actor, or are habitual. Approximately 25% of the
interactions were coded by pairs of independent coders to obtain
intraclass correlations. Within-coder alpha coefficients for negative and
positive behavior were obtained from the three scales constituting each
measure.
Observer measures were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (the behavior
is not at all characteristic of the individual) to 9 (the behavior is very characteristic
of the individual). Negative behavior was measured with three scales. The
hostility scale measures the degree of hostility and anger the focal person
displays toward the recipient and the degree to which he or she is critical,
rejecting, or disapproving of the recipient. The antisocial scale measures
1
See Melby et al. (1995) for validation of the negative behavior scales.
265
the degree of resistance or defiance the focal person displays toward the
recipient through inconsiderate, noncompliant, insensitive, or obnoxious
behavior. The angry-coercive scale measures the degree to which the focal
person tries to influence the other person through the use of anger or
hostility (e.g., by using power plays, making demands or hostile commands, or being stubborn or resistant; Melby et al., 1989). These measures
had excellent reliability. Cronbachs alphas for the hostility, angrycoercive, and anti-social scales were .91 and .91 for sibling and adolescent,
respectively, at Time 1, and .94 and .94 for sibling and adolescent, respectively, at Time 2. Intraclass correlations for the negative behavior scales in
1990 and 1992 ranged from .70 to .84 for adolescent and from .69 to .86 for
sibling.
Positive behavior was also measured with three scales. The warmth
scale measures the degree to which the focal person reacts favorably toward, takes an interest in, or enjoys being with the recipient of the behavior. The prosocial scale measures the focal persons ability to relate
competently with other family members and includes cooperativeness,
sensitivity, helpfulness, a willingness to change for the sake of others, or a
willingness to comply with the requests of others. The listener-responsiveness scale measures the degree to which the focal person listens to and
shows interest in the recipient by acknowledging and validating what the
other person has to say (e.g., by using nonverbal backchannels and verbal
assents; Melby et al., 1989). These measures also had excellent reliability.
Cronbachs alphas for the warmth, prosocial, and listener-responsiveness
scales were .85 and .84 for sibling and adolescent, respectively, at Time 1,
and .84 and .80 for sibling and adolescent, respectively, at Time 2. Intraclass correlations for the positive behavior scales measured in 1990 and
1992 ranged from .48 to .70 for adolescent and from .53 to .75 for sibling.
Control variables. Finally, we used self-report of sibling age, the
mean of fathers and mothers self-reported years of education, and
mothers report of per capita income as control variables.
Plan for Data Analysis
We tested our first and second hypotheses (that parents negative attributions would predict siblings negative attributions and that siblings
and adolescents negative attributions would predict their own behavior)
using structural equation modeling as our primary analytic procedure. All
structural equation models were estimated with the maximum-likelihood
algorithm from the LISREL 8.30 software. In addition, using the modification
266
267
2
The multisample procedure available in Lisrel 8.30 simultaneously estimates a pair of
identical models conducted with separate subsamples (e.g., a pair might consist of one model
with boys and one model with girls), obtaining a single chi-square statistic for both models.
To see whether two subsamples differ significantly on a particular path, the researcher first
estimates one pair of models, constraining parallel paths to be equal to one another across the
two subsamples (e.g., the predictive path from father attributions to boy attributions is constrained to be equal to the path from father attributions to girl attributions). The researcher then
estimates a pair of models without the equality constraint, obtaining a second chi-square. The
difference between two chi-square statistics is itself distributed as a chi-square. Thus, if the
difference between the two chi-square statistics is 3.84 or greater (the .05 significance level with 1
df ), the researcher can conclude that the subsamples differ significantly from each other on that
path.
3
Factor loadings of .5, in which the latent construct accounts for 25% of the variance of the
measure (.52), are considered good. Factor loadings of .70 and higher, indicating that the latent
construct accounts for about 50% (.72 5 .49) of the variance of the measure, are considered
excellent.
268
TABLE 1
Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Attribution Scale Scores and Control
Variables
1
1. Father 1990
2. Father 1992
3. Mother 1990
4. Mother 1992
5. Sibling 1990
6. Sibling 1992
7. Parents ed.
8. PCI
9. Siblings age
M
SD
56n
45n
36n
34n
28n
09
08
03
6.97
1.77
63n
59n
36n
44n
39n
64n
43n
47n
21n
34n
23n
03
02
6.51
1.72
63n
42n
33n
07
03
02
6.80
2.03
34n
43n
04
04
11
6.27
1.90
6
31n
24n
41n
25n
53n
17n
13
13
7.52
2.48
31n
26n
36n
27n
49n
22n
06
02
7
14
12
04
05
10
11
16
10
04
08
02
04
04
02
07
04 7.27
02 6.51
06 7.03
12 6.20
18n 8.21
03 7.36
03 13.44
11 11.36
12.96
06
SD
1.91
1.84
1.95
1.89
2.24
2.30
1.63
.14
2.45
12.7
2.5
Note. Boys are above diagonal (n 5 182); girls are below diagonal (n 5 187). PCI 5 per capita
income.
n
po05, two-tailed.
4
One concern in conducting these analyses was the low reliabilities for the attribution
measures in siblings in 1990 (Cronbachs alpha 5 .62). Additional analyses (not reported)
showed that excluding siblings under age 12 in 1990 (the group with the lowest reliability) did
not substantially alter results. Thus, to maximize the sample size, we conducted analyses with
the entire sample of boys and girls.
5
We determined that there was no difference between mothers and fathers by constraining
the mother and father predictive paths to be equal to one another and comparing the resulting
chi-square with a chi-square from a model without the equality constraints. A difference equal
to or greater than 3.84 (the .05 significance level with 1 df) indicates a significant difference in the
paths. The difference was .61 for the boy model and .25 for the girl model.
269
TABLE 2
Standardized Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Factor Loadings for Latent Constructs
Father attributions
Mean
Accident
Good-natured
Mother attributions
Mean
Accident
Good-natured
Sibling attributions
Mean
Accident
Good-natured
Adolescent attributions
Mean
Accident
Good-natured
Sibling observed negative behavior
Hostility
Antisocial behavior
Angry coercive behavior
Adolescent observed negative behavior
Hostility
Antisocial behavior
Angry coercive behavior
Sibling observed positive behavior
Warmth and supportiveness
Prosocial behavior
Listener responsiveness
Adolescent observed positive behavior
Warmth and supportiveness
Prosocial behavior
Listener responsiveness
1990
1992
.66
.67
.61
.71
.62
.64
.69
.57
.67
.72
.71
.70
.63
.50
.64
.60
.75
.80
.61
.51
.70
.68
.80
.77
.95
.87
.84
.97
.90
.87
.96
.89
.82
.98
.91
.87
.81
.84
.79
.74
.91
.75
.79
.82
.79
.75
.91
.66
Note. See text for description of measures; n 5 370 for father, mother, and sibling attributions;
n 5 324 for adolescent attributions and behavior measures. All factor loadings po.05, two-tailed.
Therefore, we estimated all models with the father and mother paths
constrained equal to one another. Results for both models are presented in
Figure 1 (results for girls are in parentheses). All stability paths were high
(standardized path coefficients were .73 or higher for fathers and mothers,
and were .68 for boys and .62 for girls). The high stabilities for siblings
270
.77*
Father Attributions
1990
(.74*)
Father Attributions
1992
.12*
(.24*)
.76*
(.70*)
.49*
(.46*)
Mother Attributions
1990
.73*
(.85*)
Mother Attributions
1992
.08
.08
.60*
(.60*)
(.12*)
(.12*)
Sibling Attributions
1990
.68*
(.62*)
Sibling Attributions
1992
suggested that a 2-year time lag may be too short for an effect of parent
negative attributions on sibling negative attributions to show up. Instead,
analyses showed that Time 1 parent negative attributions predicted sibling
negative attributions indirectly through Time 2 parent negative attributions. Parents Time 2 negative attributions were significantly associated
with girls, but not boys, negative attributions (standardized beta coefficients were .08, ns, for both father and mother paths in the boy model,
and .12 for both father and mother paths in the girl model, both pso.05,
two-tailed). The indirect effect of parentss Time 1 negative attributions
on girls Time 2 negative attributions was significant (standardized
effects 5 .08 and .09 for father and mother, respectively, both pso.05,
271
two-tailed). The boys model fit the data well (w2 5 157.84 with 148 df,
GFI 5 .92, CFI 5 .99, RMSEA 5 .019). The girls model also fit the data well
(w2 5 217.14 with 148 df, GFI 5 .90, CFI 5 .94, RMSEA 5 .050). On the basis
of these analyses, we accepted the first hypothesis and concluded that
parents negative attributions about an adolescent child predicted girls
(but not boys) negative attributions about the same adolescent child.
M
SD
50n
31n
31n
29n
38n
49n
25n
12n
20n
11n
21n
29n
14n
28n
40n
22n
36n
25n
19n
15n
10
25n
36n
26n
40n
00
18n
05
7.91
2.46
7.22
2.48
16n
19n
18n
20n
23n
29n
25n
30n
46n
74n
40n
45n
82n
47n
22n
22n
24n
22n
20n
09
03
31n
40n
27n
36n
18n
19
04
31n
28n
33n
22n
06
19n
11n
14n
44n
17n
39n
09
18n
01
12.43
7.23
13.95
6.84
7.98
2.29
7.19
2.43
10
34n
30n
35n
24n
22n
15n
01
14n
41n
22n
46n
19n
23n
04
47n
78n
35n
09
16n
06
40n
71n
17n
24n
00
13.01
7.26
14.22
7.10
13.64
4.81
11.58
4.6
11
45n
08
17n
04
13.77
4.84
12
14n
25n
04
11.55
4.57
13
14
07
05
03
12.40
2.36
13.44
1.59
15
11.33
.60
Attributions
1. Sibling 1990
2. Sibling 1992
3. Adol 1990
4. Adol 1992
Neg behavior
5. Sibling 1990
6. Sibling 1992
7. Adol 1990
8. Adol 1992
Pos behavior
9. Sibling 1990
10. Sibling 1992
11. Adol 1990
12. Adol 1992
13. Sibling age
14. Parents ed.
15. PCI
272
TABLE 3
Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Attribution Scale Scores, Observer-Rated Behavior Scale Scores, and Control Variables
273
be equal to one another.6 Results are presented in Figure 2 (results for the
model examining negative behavior are outside the parentheses). Models
showed that, as expected, siblings negative attributions predicted their
negative behavior toward the partner, whereas negative behavior by the
partner did not predict the other siblings negative attributions. Time 1
sibling and adolescent negative attributions predicted own Time 2 negative behavior (standardized betas 5 .10 and .09 for siblings and adolescents, respectively, po.05, two-tailed). Additional analyses (not shown)
indicated that adolescents Time 1 negative behavior did not significantly
predict the siblings Time 2 negative attributions (standardized beta 5 .03,
p4.05), nor did the siblings Time 1 negative behavior predict Time 2
adolescent negative attributions (standardized beta 5 .02, p4.05). The
negative behavior structural model fit the data well (w2 5 466.75 with 291
df, GFI 5 .90, CFI 5 .97, RMSEA 5 .042).
Results for the positive behavior model are also presented in Figure 2
(coefficients are in parentheses). Multicollinearity in the positive behavior
models (specifically, high correlations between sibling and adolescent
warm behavior) created difficulty in estimating the models. To estimate
the models, we assumed that positive behavior is no more likely to be
exchanged between siblings than negative behavior, and we set the reciprocal paths between Time 2 positive behavior equal to those of Time 2 negative behavior. Comparison of the chi-square statistics of the models with
and without set paths showed that setting the positive paths equal to the
negative paths did not significantly affect model fit (difference in w2 5 2.02).
Results presented in Figure 2 (in parenthees) show that, as with the
negative behavior model, Time 1 sibling and adolescent negative attributions predicted own Time 2 positive behavior (standardized beta 5 .10
for both siblings and adolescents, po.05, two-tailed). Next, we used the
same procedure used earlier in the negative behavior models to test
whether the positive behavior of the attribution target predicted negative
attributions. For example, we added a predictive path from Time 1
adolescent behavior to Time 2 sibling negative attributions to a model
already containing the attribution-to-behavior paths (i.e., to the model
6
We felt confident that for most of the pathsspecifically, the stability paths and the path
predicting change in behavior from attributionssiblings and adolescents could reasonably be
considered interchangeable, and thus equality constraints would be appropriate. However,
studies cited earlier in the literature review indicated that older siblings tend to influence
younger siblings more strongly than the reverse (Updegraff et al., 2000), raising a question
regarding the appropriateness of assuming that adolescents and siblings could be considered
interchangeable. However, tests comparing the chi-square statistics of models with equality
constraints with those without equality constraints showed no differences between parallel
sibling and adolescent paths. Thus, we imposed the equality constraints on parallel paths in all
models.
274
Sibling Attributions
about Adolescent
1990
.52*
(.54*)
.28*
(-.48*)
.20*
(-.45*)
.78*
(.77*)
.15*
(.13*)
.10*
(-.10*)
.31*
(.31*)
.33*
(.33+)
.80*
(.81*)
Adolescent
Observer-Rated
Behavior to
Sibling 1990
.23*
(-.37*)
Sibling Attributions
about Adolescent
1992
.28*
(-.38*)
.31*
(.30*)
.35*
(.35+)
.15
(.07)
Adolescent
Observer-Rated
Behavior to
Sibling 1992
.09*
(-.10*)
Adolescent
Attributions about
Sibling 1990
.69*
(.69*)
Adolescent
Attributions about
Sibling 1992
FIGURE 2 Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for models examining sibling and
adolescent attributions and observer-rated sibling and adolescent behavior (results for negative behavior are outside parentheses; results for positive behavior are inside parentheses).
N 5 324 for both models. Indicators for latent constructs are not depicted. Only hypothesized
paths are included (see the Results section for details). Parallel paths are constrained to be
equal across sibling and adolescent, including: sibling and adolescent attribution stability
paths, sibling and adolescent behavior stability paths, sibling and adolescent behavior reciprocal paths, and attribution-to-behavior paths. Positive behavior reciprocal paths are set
equal to those of negative behavior reciprocal paths (see the Results section for further
information). Sibling age and parents education are used as control variables (not depicted).
n
po.05, two-tailed; 1path coefficients set (see text for details).
275
presented in Figure 2). The new paths were marginally significant (standardized betas from behavior to attributions were both
.10, p 5 .05,
t 5 1.96). The paths from negative attributions to behavior were not
reduced in magnitude, and remained significant (t 5 2.31). The magnitude and significance of the standardized betas suggest that the two sets
of paths are equivalent. However, the addition of the behavior-to-attribution paths was just under significance (change in chi-square was 3.64). In
contrast, additional analyses adding attribution-to-behavior paths to a
model already containing behavior-to-attribution paths did improve
model fit (change in chi-square was 4.70). These results suggest that although both sets of paths have an effect, the paths predicting behavior
from negative attributions are somewhat stronger. The final positive behavior structural model (shown in Figure 2) fit the data well (w2 5 501.07
with 285 df, GFI 5 .90, CFI 5 .95, RMSEA 5 .047).
On the basis of these analyses, we concluded that siblings and adolescents negative attributions predicted their own negative and positive behaviors toward one another. In contrast, the path from sibling positive
behavior to partners negative attributions was only marginally significant.
276
TABLE 4
Comparison of Mean Attribution Scale Scores by Gender Constellation of Sibling Pair
Gender Constellation of Sibling Pair
Time 1 (1990)
(SD)
Time 2 (1992)
(SD)
GirlGirl
(n 5 100)
BoyBoy
(n 5 89)
BoyGirl
(n 5 87)
GirlBoy
(n 5 93)
7.11
(2.48)
6.39
(2.57)
8.53
(2.17)
7.58
(2.08)
8.00
(2.40)
7.52
(2.29)
7.91
(2.28)
7.15
(2.49)
Note. A high score indicates a more negative attribution. Planned contrasts show no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex sibling pairs. Girlgirl pairs are significantly less
negative than boyboy pairs.
mixed-model ANOVA showed that the birth order main effect was not
significant, F(1, 2272) 5 2.709, p4.05. However, birth order had significant
interactions with two other variables: family member, F(2, 2272) 5 3.196,
po.05, and time, F(1, 2272) 5 4.134, po.05. Independent samples t tests
showed significant differences in mean negative attribution score by birth
order for siblings, but not for fathers or mothers, and only in 1990
(t 5 2.76, po.05). This significant interaction (which confirmed Hypothesis 5) is presented in Figure 3, which shows a significant difference
between younger and older siblings in 1990, with older siblings being
more negative in their attributions than younger siblings. By 1992, both
younger and older siblings had become less negative, with older siblings
showing the greatest decrease in negativity, coming to equal younger siblings in their evaluations of the adolescent.
In sum, in contrast to expectations that same-sex sibling pairs would be
less negative in their attributions than opposite-sex sibling pairs, our results showed that there was no difference. Thus, we rejected our third
hypothesis. These analyses also showed that younger siblings made less
negative attributions than older siblings but that this difference declined
over time. Thus, we accepted our fourth and fifth hypotheses.
DISCUSSION
Although the sibling bond is recognized as an important close relationship, it is relatively understudied (Jenkins, 1992; Leder, 1991). Furthermore, despite the demonstrated importance of attributions in other close
relationships, such as marriage (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham,
277
FIGURE 3 Mean attribution scale score for younger and older siblings in 1990 and 1992.
Ns 5 173 younger siblings and 191 older siblings. Differences between older and younger
siblings are statistically significant in 1990 (po.05).
2001; Fincham et al., 1990; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991), no study to our
knowledge has specifically examined attributions within the sibling relationship. In this study, we addressed this lacuna in the literature by
examining two possible sources of child or adolescent negative attributions about other family members: parent attributions, which have been
proposed as a correlate of child or adolescent attributions about other
family members (Bugental & Johnston, 2000; Grusec & Mammone, 1995),
and birth order and gender constellation of the sibling pair, which has
been shown to have an important influence on sibling relationship dynamics (Buhrmester, 1992; Hoffman, 1991). In addition, we investigated
associations among negative attributions and behavior, both the possibility
278
279
280
as characteristic of the spouse. At the same time, they may dismiss positive
spousal behavior as due to temporary, situational causes, concluding that
it is not reflective of the spouses true character or feelings (Bradbury &
Fincham, 1992; Gottman, 1994). These studies suggest that the importance
of attributions for relationships may lie in their relative invulnerability to
disconfirming evidence. Although we did not have the data to test formally whether participants were more likely to perceive attribution-congruent (vs. attribution-incongruent) behavior in their interaction partner,
our finding that siblings negative attributions predict their own behavior
more consistently than the behavior of the partner predicts negative attributions is consistent with this process. Further studies should examine
whether this process, found in married couples, extends to other types of
close relationships, such as siblings.
An important limitation of this study concerns our measurement of
negative attributions. Our measure was short and not derived from prior
theorytwo factors that probably contributed to its low reliability. Although much progress was made in the 1990s with regard to the measurement of relationship attributions (Fincham et al., 1998; Fincham &
Bradbury, 1992), we were limited by the attribution measures that were
available to us. Future research should take advantage of the new attribution measures that are now available, such as the childrens relationship
attribution measure (Fincham et al., 1998).
Another factor that should be kept in mind when reviewing these results concerns the fact that behavior was measured with an observer rating
of a 15-min interaction task, whereas attributions were measured with a
self-report. Although using different measurement modalities to assess
study concepts solves one set of problemsthose due to method variancethey introduce other potential problems. For example, the self-reported attributions drew on a longer time frame and encompassed more
social situations than the observational task. Both of these factors could
have increased the stability of attributions relative to behavior, which in
turn could have influenced our finding that attributions predict behavior
rather than the reverse. In addition, conclusions regarding causation can
never be drawn from correlational analyses, such as structural equation
modeling. Thus, future research should examine alternative explanations
for our findings, such as the possibility that associations between parent and
daughter attributions are due to shared genetics or social contextual factors.
Finally, the generalizability of our results is limited because our sample is
exclusively White and rural. Replication using non-White and urban samples will extend our understanding of attribution processes in families.
This study can be extended in several ways. Scholars have suggested
that early dyadic experiences can establish conceptual models and
281
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During the past several years support for this research has come
from multiple sources including the National Institute of Mental
Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH48165, MH51361), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the Bureau of Maternal and
Child Health (MCJ-109572), the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development among Youth in High-Risk
Settings, and the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment
Station (Project 3320). The authors would like to thank Thomas Bradbury,
James Burk, Roger Clark, Howard Kaplan, and Alex McIntosh for their
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral
and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational
specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213232.
282
283
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Arias, I., & Brody, G. H. (1998). Childrens attributions in the
family: The childrens relationship attribution measure. Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
481493.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The impact of attributions in marriage: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481489.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1991). Cognition in marriage: A program of research on
attributions. Advances in Personal Relationships, 2, 159203.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship
attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457468.
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., & Scott, C. K. (1990). Cognition in marriage. In F. D. Fincham, &
T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage (pp. 118149). New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). Attribution processes in close relationships. In
G. J. O. Fletcher, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 735). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 5775.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grusec, J. E., Hastings, P., & Mammone, N. (1994). Parenting cognitions and relationship
schemas. In J. G. Smetana (Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implications (pp. 519). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grusec, J. E., & Mammone, N. (1995). Features and sources of parents attributions about
themselves and their children. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 4973.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355370.
Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to parent
child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 465479.
Hoffman, L. W. (1991). The influence of the family environment on personality: Accounting
for sibling differences. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 187203.
Hogan, D. M., Etz, K. E., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Reconsidering the role of children in family
research: Conceptual and methodological issues. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), Contemporary
perspectives on family research: Vol. 1. Through the eyes of the child: Re-visioning children as
active agents in family life (pp. 329351). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Philipsen, L. C. (1998). Stability and continuity of child caregiver and childpeer relationships. Child Development, 69, 418426.
Jenkins, J. (1992). Sibling relationships in disharmonious homes: Potential difficulties and
protective effects. In F. Boer, & J. Dunn (Eds.), Childrens sibling relationships (pp. 125138).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, M. D., Karney, B. R., Rogge, R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). The role of marital behavior
in the longitudinal association between attributions and marital quality. In V. Manusov, &
J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 173192).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220266). New York: Academic Press.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or trait? A growth
curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 295309.
Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change.
New York: Academic Press.
284
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of
young childrens early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 11031118.
Leder, J. M. (1991). Brothers and sisters: How they shape our lives. New York: St Martins Press.
Lochman, J. E. (1987). Self- and peer perceptions and attributional biases of aggressive and
nonaggressive boys in dyadic interactions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55,
404410.
Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2000). Marital commitment and marital
interaction: Trajectories of growth and decline. Manuscript submitted for publication.
McClanahan, S., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption.
American Journal of Sociology, 94, 130152.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Step in or stay out?
Parents roles in adolescent siblings relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
746760.
Melby, J., Conger, R. D., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., et al. (1989). The Iowa family
interaction coding manual (1st ed.). Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University at Ames.
Melby, J., Conger, R. D., Ge, X., & Warner, T. D. (1995). The use of structural equation modeling
in assessing the quality of marital observations. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 280293.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Minnett, A. M., Vandell, D. L., & Santrock, J. W. (1983). The effects of sibling status on sibling
interaction: Influence of birth order, age spacing, sex of child, and sex of sibling. Child
Development, 54, 10641072.
Munton, A. G., & Antaki, C. (1988). Causal beliefs amongst families in therapy: Attributions at
the group level. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 9197.
Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to
interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 459468.
Pepler, D., Corter, C., & Abramovitch, R. (1982). Social relations among children: Siblings
and peers. In K. Rubin, & H. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood
(pp. 20922). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Quiggle, N. L., Garber, J., Panak, W. F., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social information processing in
aggressive and depressed children. Child Development, 63, 13051320.
Schwartz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI.
Child Development, 56, 462479.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Adolescents sex-typed friendship
experiences: Does having a sister versus a brother matter? Child Development, 71,
15971610.
Vandell, D. L. (2000). Parents, peer groups and other socializing influences. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 699710.
Vandell, D. L., Minnett, A. M., & Santrock, J. W. (1987). Age differences in sibling relationships
during middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 247257.
Waas, G. A. (1988). Social attributional biases of peer-rejected and aggressive children. Child
Development, 59, 969992.
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh
discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child
Development, 63, 13211335.
White, L. K. (1990). Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the eighties. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 904912.