Effect of Sibling Perception of Differential Parental

‘Ireatment in Sibling Dyads With One Disabled Child

LUCILLE WOLF, M.Sc., SANDRA FISMAN, M.B., DEBORAH ELLISON, M.A., AND TOM FREEMAN, M.D.

ABSTRACT
Objective: To examine sibling perception of parental differential treatment in families of children with pervasive devel-
opmental disorder (PDD), Down syndrome (DS), and nondisabled controls. Method: Sibling self-conceptand social sup-
port were studied in the context of sibling perceptions of parental differential treatment and caretaker plus teacher
evaluations of sibling behavioral adjustment. Measures were completed at time 1 and time 2.The effect of parental stress
and the difficulty of the disabled child, as well as the sibling relationship, were considered. Results: For siblings of PDD
children, internalizing and externalizing behavior problems identified by caretakers were evident at time 1 and more
accentuated at time 2, at which time teachers also identifiedthese difficulties.DS siblings were reported by caretakers and
teachers to have only internalizingproblems and only at time 2. These difficulties relatedto the perceptionfor PDD siblings
that they were preferred over their disabled sibling and for the DS sibling that their disabled sibling was preferred. Feelings
of low competence predicted internalizingdifficulties. Social support, especially over time, had a positive effect for all sib-
lings, includingthe controls. Conclusion: The elucidation of specific mechanisms contributingto adjustment problems in
the siblings of disabled children will allow for the development of specific preventive interventions. J. Am. Acad. Child
Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1998,37(12):1317-1325. Key Words: parental differentialtreatment, sibling self-concept, social sup-
port, sibling adjustment.

It would be unrealistic, given the importance of the sib- to yield a greater understanding of the impact of siblings
ling relationship, to presume that having a disabled sibling on development (Lobato et al., 1988).
would not exert a profound effect on the psychological The effects of differential parental treatment of sib-
well-being of other siblings in the family. The effects of a lings on their behavior and their relationship is an area
sibling relationship cannot be adequately explained of fairly recent empirical study. The majority of the
solely on the basis of demographics of the family (gender research concerns nondisabled dyads (Brody et al., 1992;
and birth order) and the characteristics of the disability; Dunn et al., 1991). The home environment may differ
rather a transactional, family systems perspective, which for siblings of children with and without a disability. The
takes into consideration both the direct and indirect nondisabled sibling may encounter less parental atten-
effects on the sibling relationship over time, is required tion (McKeever, 1983), increased care and chore respon-
sibilities (McHale and Gamble, 1989), risk for poor peer
Acceptedjuly 9, 1998.
relations (Cadman et al., 1988), lower level of participa-
From the Division of Child and Adolescent Pychiatry, Children?Hospital of tion in outside activities (Dyson, 1989), and loss of com-
Western Ontario, Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPN), and Departments panionship (Siemon, 1984). Sibling dyads comprise one
of Pycholoa and Pychiatry, University of Western Ontario (UWO), London,
Ontario, Canada. Dr. Fisman is Chair of the Child Division and Profissoc
of the subsystems of the family, and there are both direct
UWO. Ms. Wolfis a research epidemiologist at CPN. Ms. Ellison is with the and indirect factors and processes within the larger system
Department ofPycholoa, UWO. Dr. Freeman is afamily practitioner at Byron that influence this relationship. The emotional atmos-
Family Medical Centre and Associate Profissor, UWO.
phere in the family and the perception of parental differ-
Supported by a research grant from the Department of Pychiany Research
Fund, UWO, and the McConachie Foundation for Down Syndrome Research. ential treatment are associated with the quality of sibling
Reprint requests to Dr. Fisman, Division of Child and Adolescent Pychiatry, relationships (Brody and Stoneman, 1987).
Room 6118, 6South, Phase I, W C Children?Hospital ofwestern Ontario, 800 Differential treatment may affect children’s behavioral
Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario, Canah N6C 2V5.
0890-8567/98/3712-1317/$03.00/001998 by the American Academy of
and emotional adjustment, as well as the quality of sib-
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. ling relationships (Dunn and Stocker, 1989). While par-

J . AM. ACAD. C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998 1317

WOLF E T AL.

ents strive to provide equal treatment for their children, internalizing behavior of the nondisabled sibling. Col-
they may not achieve this goal or acknowledge differ- lection of data from the nondisabled sibling, the pri-
ential treatment (Furman and Adler, 1986). mary caregiver, and teacher assisted in the collection of
Greater levels of differential treatment have been unbiased data.
described in families with disabled children (McHale We hypothesized that siblings who experienced low
and Pawletko, 1992). Children are sensitive and percep- self-competence and perceived differential treatment in
tive to differential treatment, and their reactions vary at favor of the disabled child would exhibit increased exter-
different stages of development. In families without a nalizing and internalizing behavior, as reported by the
disabled child, consistent and positive maternal rearing parent and teacher. In addition, we hypothesized that
practices have been demonstrated to beneficially affect siblings who perceived low social support and parental
siblings’ relationships and behavior, to reduce hostility, differential treatment in favor of the child with the dis-
and to increase prosocial behavior, whereas maternal ability would exhibit increased externalizing and internal-
negative treatment is associated with negative and con- izing behavior as reported by the parent and the teacher.
flictual sibling relationships and child adjustment (Brody Finally, siblings who perceived differential parental treat-
et al., 1987; McHale and Gamble, 1989; Stocker et al., ment in favor of the disabled child would report low
1989). The picture with a disabled child may be more warmth in the sibling relationship.
complex, with different effects on the siblings adjust-
ment and on the sibling relationship (McHale and
METHOD
Pawletko, 1992).
In families without a disabled child, positive self- Participants
concept has been correlated with favorable sibling rela- One hundred thirty-seven families participated at time 1. Partici-
tionships (Dunn and Plomin, 1990). In addition, the pants included 46 siblings of children with pervasive developmental
receipt of social support is reported to enhance resilience disorder (PDD) according to DSM-IZZ-R criteria (American Psychia-
tric Association, 1987), 45 siblings of children with Down syndrome
in children (Garmezy, 1984; Werner, 1989). There is (DS), and their primary caregivers and teachers. Both groups were
strong evidence for an inverse relationship between receiving or had received diagnostic assessment and services from two
social support and levels of psychological symptomatol- regional centers in southwestern Ontario. All families meeting the
eligibility criteria (below) were invited to participate. Forty-six sib-
ogy in children (Barrera, 1981; Compas et al., 1986). lings of typically developing children were recruited from a family
However, in families with a disabled child, there may be medical practice in southwestern Ontario and served as controls.
different factors that are operative; for example, the lack Participation rates for the families contacted were 92% PDD, 85%
DS, 60% controls, and 98% for their teachers. The significantly
of parental favoritism and the absence of feelings of
lower participation rate for controls may have selected out a more
hyperresponsibility on the part of the sibling to make up willing group of volunteers. Siblings were between the ages of 8 and
for the disabled child are correlated with favorable sibling 16 years at the time of the first testing; the target children were
relationships (Seligman, 1987). Bischof and Tingstrom between 4 and 18 years of age. Siblings were matched on race, gender,
and ordinal position. If two siblings in the family fit the criteria, the
(1991) noted that although siblings perceive their one closest in age to the target child was selected. Three years later at
mother to be partial to the child with the disability, there time 2, children in 126 families were restudied: 41 PDD, 42 DS, and
are no significant differences on measures of self-concept 43 controls.
Criteria for inclusion in the study consisted of the following: the
or behavior; however, there are no studies that examine sibling and target child were natural siblings and were living at home
both self-concept and social support in the context of with at least one natural parent; they were no more than 4 years apart
differential treatment and behavioral adjustment. in age; they were not twins; there were no other significant disabil-
ities in the family; and parents could read, write, and speak English.
This study assessed the effects, at two points in time,
Table 1 includes demographic characteristics of the study popula-
of parental differential treatment of siblings on the tion. Significant differences were observed only with regard to
behavioral adjustment of the nondisabled sibling. The income, with the controls having higher income, and the expected
factors of interest were the nondisabled siblings’ percep- higher number of males in the PDD sample.
tions of differential treatment; their self-competence
Measures
and the social support they perceived from parents,
Behavior and Social-Emotional Functioning of the Designated
teachers, and peers; and the warmth and closeness of
Sibling. The Survey Diagnostic Instrument (Cadman et al., 1988)
their sibling relationship. Both the primary caregiver adapted from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and
and the teacher provided data on the externalizing and Edelbrock, 1983) for use in the Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS

1318 J . AM. ACAD. CHILD ADOLESC. PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, DECEMBER 1998

 DIFFERENTIAL PARENTAL T R E A T M E N T

scales) (Boyle et al., 1987) was completed by the primary caregiver to domains range from 0.80 to 0.87 and 0.91 for the total score. Test-
record behavioral problems and competencies of the designated sib- retest reliability ranges from 0.68 to 0.85 and 0.84 for the total score.
ling. This instrument is designed for children from age 4 upward. Validity is shared with the PSI long form.
Teachers completed a teacher version of the instrument. A total SiSling Relationships. Siblings completed the Sibling Relationship
behavior score was obtained, as well as scores for internalizing and Questionnaire-Brief version (Furman and Buhrmeister, 1985),
externalizing behavior problems. The OC HS scales have dem- which measures 16 dimensions of sibling relationship. The internal
onstrated good internal consistency (all estimates > 0.74) and test- consistency coefficients exceed 0.70. Reported test-retest reliability is
retest reliability (all estimates > 0.65 reliability) (Boyle et al., 1993). 0.71. Four factors are obtained using this measure: Warmth/Closeness,
Self-Perception. Siblings completed the Self-Perception Profile for Relative Power/Status, Conflict, and Rivalry. No significant correlation
Children (Harter, 1985). This measure of self-competence calculates has been found with social desirability ( r = 0.14) (Furman and
five specific domains-scholastic competence, social acceptance, ath- Buhrmeister, 1985). This study used two factors, Warmth/Closeness
letic competence, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct-in and Rivalry, as measures of the siblings perception of the relation-
addition to a global self-worth score. Internal consistency reliabilities ships with the target child and the siblings perception of parental dif-
for all subscales range from 0.71 to 0.86. Harter (personal communi- ferential treatment.
cation) suggested that the original scale be used throughout the study Demographic Data. A questionnaire was created to obtain perti-
rather than changing to the adolescent version. nent demographic data.
Social Support. The Social Support Scale for Children (Harter,
1986) was used to measure siblings perceived support. Four sources
of support are measured: parents, teachers, classmates, and close Procedure
friends. Validity data show a significant correlation between per- Families were sent letters describing the study and inviting their
ceived support by Classmates and parents, and the child’s self-concept. participation. Primary caregivers and siblings provided signed con-
Internal subscale reliabilities range from 0.72 to 0.88 (Harter, 1986). sents. Confidentiality and the right to terminate association with the
Parent Psychosocial Measure. The Parenting Stress Index-Short project at any time were assured. Packets of questionnaires were sent
Form (PSIISF) (Abidin, 1990), a direct derivative of the full-length to the primary caregiver (128 mothers and 9 fathers), the designated
PSI (Abidin, 1986), focuses on three factors-parent distress, par- sibling, and hidher current teacher. Stamped, self-addressed enve-
ent-child dysfunctional interaction, and difficult child-in addition lopes were provided for each participant, specifically to ensure confi-
to a total parenting stress score. Internal reliability coefficients for the dentiality for the siblings.

TABLE 1 Data Analysis

Demographic Data
Previous analyses (Fisman et al., 1996) indicated group differences
PDD DS Control in both levels of the dependent variables (PDD siblings evidenced
( n = 46) ( n = 45) ( n = 46) more behavior problems than the other two groups) and the factors
affecting the severity of behavior problems. Thus, in testing the
Primary caregiver‘s education hypotheses, it was decided to analyze each group separately. In addi-
Elementary 0 1 0 tion, because the relations among the variables and their relative influ-
Secondary 16 15 13 ence on the dependent measures was of interest at both time points,
Some college 22 19 20 it was decided to analyze the time 1 and time 2 data separately.
College 8 10 13 Regression analysis was used to test the first two hypotheses, and
Marital status correlation analysis was used to test the third hypothesis. Two sets of
Married 40 42 43 additional analyses were undertaken for explanatory purposes. The
Separated 1 1 1 first assessed whether the parents’ view of the difficulty in dealing
Divorced 0 1 1 with the disabled child would influence the siblings’ perceptions of
Common-law 2 0 0 parental differential treatment, and the second assessed differences
Remarried 2 1 1 among the groups of siblings in how social support from different
Widowed 1 0 0 sources related to the four dependent variables.
Income
<$50,000 24 22 11
>$50,000 22 23 35 RESULTS
Gender of sibling
Male 18 17 18 Hypothesis 1: Siblings who experience low self-competence
Female 28 28 28
Gender of disabled child and perceive that the parent shows preferencefor the hand-
Male 38 21 icapped sibling will have adjwtment problems.
Female 8 24 Separate regressions were completed for each group;
No. of children in family
Two 24 16 26
the Harter self-competence score and the Parental Pref-
Three 17 19 14 erence score were regressed on each of the dependent
Four or more 5 10 6 variables (parent and teacher reports of externalizing
Note: PDD = pervasive developmental disorder; DS = Down syn- behavior problems and parent and teacher reports of
drome. internalizing problems) for time 1 and time 2 (Table 2).

J . A M . ACAD. C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998 1319

WOLF E T AL.

TABLE 2
Regressions With Perceived Competence and Parental Preference
Time p Wt. p wt. % Time p wt. p wt. YO
Variable 1 Comp. Pref. Variance 2 Comp. Pref. Variance

PDD
PEXT p < .05 -.3895* -.0168 15.7 p < .001 -.2701* -.4437* 31.8
PINT p < .05 -.3685* -.2651* 13.5 p < .05 -.3768* .1841 20.6
TEACHEXT NS NS p < .05 -.2968 -.1955 15.0
TEACHINT NS NS p < .05 -.4353* -.0934 21.6
DS
PEXT NS NS NS NS
PINT NS NS p < .01 -.2416* .3210* 28.8
TEACHEXT NS NS NS NS
TEACHINT NS NS p < .05 -.3233* .2 126 16.5
Control
PEXT p < .05 -.3535* .1441 16.5 NS NS
PINT NS NS NS NS
TEACH EXT NS NS NS NS
TEACHINT NS NS NS NS

Note: PDD = pervasive developmental disorder; DS = Down syndrome; p Wt. Comp. = f3 weight competence; p Wt. Pref. =
p weight preference: PEXT = parent report of externalizing problems: PINT = parent report of internalizing problems;
TEACHEXT = teacher report of externalizing problems; TEACHINT = teacher report of internalizing problems; NS = not
significant.
* Significant predictor in the regression equation.

Siblings of PDD Children competent and that they were preferred by the parent
Time 1. The regressions were significant for both par- correlated with adjustment problems that were more
ent reports of externalizing behavior and parent reports pronounced at time 2.
of internalizing problems, indicating greater adjustment Siblings of Down Syndrome Children
problems associated with lower feelings of competence
Time 1. None of the four regressions were significant.
and feelings of the sibling that he/she is preferred over
Time 2. Regressions were significant for both parent
the handicapped child. Both perceived competence and
and teacher reports of internalizing problems. For par-
perceived parental preference were significant predictors
ent reports of internalizing problems, both siblings’ level
for parent reports of internalizing behavior problems.
of perceived competence and parental preference were
The only significant predictor for parent reports of exter- significant predictors. For teacher reports of internalizing
nalizing behavior problems was the siblings’ level of per- problems, only perceived competence was a significant
ceived competence. predictor. Thus, for siblings of DS children, feelings of
Time 2. All four regressions were significant. For par- low competence and believing that their disabled sibling
ent reports of externalizing behavior problems, both is preferred by the parents are related to increases in
predictors were significant, indicating that greater exter- internalizing problems that evidence themselves later,
nalizing behavior problems are associated with lower offering partial support for hypothesis 1.
feelings of competence and feelings on the part of the
sibling that he/she is preferred over the handicapped Siblings of Control Children
child. For parent and teacher reports of internalizing Time 1. The only significant regression was for parent
behavior problems, only perceived competence was a reports of externalizing behavior. Only perceived com-
significant predictor. For this group of children, feeling petence was a significant predictor in the regression equa-
that they were not competent was associated with reports tion, indicating that low levels of perceived competence
by both parents and teachers of internalizing problems. are related to greater externalizing behavior problems.
For teacher reports of externalizing behavior problems, Time 2. None of the regressions were significant. Thus
neither of the predictors was significant on its own. Thus, for siblings of control children, hypothesis 1 was not
for siblings of PDD children, feeling that they were less supported.

1320 J . A M . A C A D . C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998

 DIFFERENTIAL PARENTAL T R E A T M E N T

Hypothesis 2: Siblings who receive low socialsupportand Time 2. Regressions were significant for parent reports
view their parents as showing preferencef o r the handi- of internalizing problems, teacher reports of externaliz-
capped child will evidence greater adjustmentproblems. ing behavior, and teacher reports of internalizing prob-
Separate regressions again were used for each group lems. For parent reports of internalizing problems, both
by regressing Harter social support scores and Parental social support and parental differential treatment were
Preference scores on each of the dependent variables for significant predictors. Greater internalizing problems
time 1 and time 2 (Table 3). were associated with low levels of social support and
believing that the disabled sibling was preferred by the
Siblings of PDD Children parents. For teacher reports of externalizing and inter-
nalizing problems, only social support was a significant
Time 1. None of the regressions were significant.
predictor, indicating low levels of social support associ-
Time 2. Regressions for both parent reports of exter-
ated with higher levels of both internalizing and exter-
nalizing and internalizing problems were significant. For
nalizing problems as reported by teachers. Thus, for
parent reports of externalizing behavior problems, both
siblings of children with DS, hypothesis 2 was partially
perceived levels of social support and parental preference
supported.
were significant predictors, indicating that children who
felt low levels of social support and that they were pre- Siblings of Control Children
ferred over their disabled siblings exhibited higher levels
Time 1. The only significant regression was parent
of externalizing behavior problems. For parent reports of
reports of externalizing behavior problems. Only the
internalizing problems, only level of social support was a
level of social support was a significant predictor in this
significant predictor, indicating that low levels of social
regression equation, with low levels of social support asso-
support are associated with greater internalizing prob-
ciated with greater externalizing behavior problems.
lems. Thus, for siblings of PDD children, hypothesis 2
Time 2. The only significant regression was teacher
was partially supported.
reports of internalizing problems. The only significant
predictor in this regression was social support, indicating
Siblings of Down Syndrome Children
low levels of social support associated with higher levels
Time 1. None of the regressions were significant. of internalizing problems as reported by teachers. Thus,

TABLE 3
Regressions With Perceived Social Support and Parental Preference
Time p Wt. p wt. YO Time p wt. p wt. %
Variable 1 SUPP. Pref. Variance 2 SUPP. Pref. Variance

PDD
PEXT NS NS p < .001 -.2820* -.4267* 32.3
PINT NS NS p < .05 -.2962* -. 1903 15.2
TEACHEXT NS NS NS NS
TEACHINT NS NS NS NS
DS
PEXT NS NS NS NS
PINT NS NS p < .01 -.3420* .4544* 26.8
TEACHEXT NS NS p < .05 -.3856* ,1922 20.3
TEACHINT NS NS p < .01 -.4955* .19 13 30.4
Control
PEXT p < .05 -.3543* .1154 16.3 NS NS
PINT NS NS NS NS
TEACHEXT NS NS NS NS
TEACHINT NS NS p < .05 -.4233* ,1448 20.2
Note: P D D = pervasive developmental disorder; DS = Down syndrome; p Wt. Supp. = p weight support; p Wt. Pref. = p
weight preference; PEXT = parent report of externalizing problems; PINT = parent report of internalizing problems;
TEACHEXT = teacher report of externalizing problems; TEACHINT = teacher report of internalizing problems; NS = not
significant.
* Significant predictor in the regression equation.

J . AM. ACAD. C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998 1321

WOLF E T AL

for siblings of control children there was limited support TABLE 4

for hypothesis 2. Correlations Between Sources of Social Support
and Dependent Measures for Time 1
Hypothesis 3: Siblings who perceive differential treatment
Parent Teacher Classmate Friend
will report low warmth in the sibling relationship.
Correlation analysis was used to test this hypothesis, PDD ( n = 46)
correlating differential treatment scores with siblings' PEXT -.1580 -.4095** -.1778 -.3374*
PINT .0874 .lo60 -.0538 -.2364
reports of the warmth of their relationship with the dis- TEACHEXT -.0898 -.3499* -.2789 -.305 1 *
abled child. None of the correlations were significant, and TEACHINT ,1963 .1221 .2550 .lo23
thus hypothesis 3 was not supported. DS ( n = 45)
PEXT -. 1655 -.2847 .0358 -.2183
DifferentialTreatment as a Function of Child Difficulty PINT -.2059 .0720 -.0753 -.0718
TEACHEXT -.lo76 -.2542 -.1103 -.2478
Time I . The Difficult Child subscale of the PSI/SF TEACHINT .lo39 .0308 .0824 .1492
was divided into high and low difficulty scores using the Control ( n = 46)
PEXT -.2431 -.2553 -.2825 -.3717*
cutoff suggested by Abidin (1990) representing the 90th PINT -.0765 -.0840 -. 1423 .0586
percentile in child difficulty. This scale was used to mea- TEACHEXT -.2529 -.1852 -. 1482 -.2974
sure the difficulty of the disabled or target child, in the TEACHINT -.2380 -.2994 -.0994 -. 1288
case of a control family, as rated by the parent. Analysis Note: PDD = pervasive developmental disorder; DS = Down syn-
of variance was performed on the Parental Preference drome; PEXT = parent report of externalizing problems; PINT =
score by child difficulty as reported by parents (high or parent report of internalizing problems; TEACHEXT = teacher
report of externalizing problems; TEACHINT = teacher report of
low) and group membership. A significant interaction internalizing problems.
was obtained. For siblings of PDD and control children, " p < .05; * * p < .01.
when child difficulty was reported by the parents as
high, the siblings preference scores rose, indicating they led to fewer externalizing behavior problems, while sup-
were more likely to believe that they were preferred by port from parents and classmates was unrelated to the
their parents over the disabled sibling or target child. For degree of behavior problems exhibited.
siblings of DS children, the opposite was true. When Siblings of Down Syndrome Children. Social support
parents reported that the disabled child was difficult, the from any source was unrelated to behavioral adjustment
sibling's preference scores fell, indicating they were more problems (Table 4).
likely to believe that the disabled child was preferred by Siblings of Control Children. Social support from close
the parents. The interaction was no longer significant at friends was negatively correlated with parent reports of
time 2. externalizing problems. Social support from close friends
was related to fewer externalizing behavior problems as
Sources of Social Support
reported by parents (Table 4).
The Social Support Scale for Children was divided
Time 2 Social Support
into its four subscales (Support From Parents, Support
From Teachers, Support From Classmates, and Support Siblings of PDD Children. At time 2, social support
From Close Friends). These subscales were correlated from teachers continued to be negatively correlated with
with each of the four dependent measures (parent reports parent reports of externalizing behavior problems. As
of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems well, social support from parents was negatively corre-
and teacher reports of externalizing and internalizing lated with teacher reports of internalizing and external-
behavior problems). izing behavior problems. For this group of children at
time 2, social support from teachers was related to fewer
Time 1 Social Support
externalizing behavior problems as seen by parents,
Siblings of PDD Children. Social support received while social support from parents was related to fewer
from teachers and close friends was negatively correlated externalizing and internalizing behavior problems as
with both parent and teacher reports of externalizing seen by teachers (Table 5).
behavior problems (Table 4). For this group of children, Siblings of Down Syndrome Children.At time 2, social
receiving social support from teachers and close friends support from parents was negatively correlated with par-

1322 J . A M . ACAD. C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998

 DIFFERENTIAL PARENTAL T R E A T M E N T

TABLE 5 with a DS sibling is an entirely different experience than

Correlations Between Sources of Social Support living with a PDD sibling.
and Dependent Measures for Time 2
Of particular interest is the effect of the direction of
Parent Teacher Classmate Friend
perceived sibling parental preferential treatment in the
PDD ( n = 46) siblings of PDD children compared with those of DS
PEXT -.0888 -.498 1 * -.1850 -.2726 children. For the siblings of PDD children, it is the per-
PINT -.1441 -.2706 -.2834 -.2241
TEACHEXT -.3678* -.2979* -.0726 -. 1847 ception that they are preferred over their handicapped
TEACHINT -.4005* -.2685 -.0003 -.2927 sibling that is predictive of adjustment difficulties. In
DS ( n = 45) contrast, for the DS siblings, it is the perception that their
PEXT -.3600* -. 1927 .0615 .0307
handicapped sibling is preferred, particularly over time,
PINT -.2521 -.2245 -. 1393 .0329
TEACHEXT -.4095* -.3665* -.2062 -.2983 that is associated with internalizing adjustment difficul-
TEACHINT -.2667 -.5388** -.3231* -.3663* ties. This latter finding is more logically predictable and
Control ( n = 46) congruent with findings in nondisabled family contexts
PEXT .1414 -.0833 -.0034 -.0060
PINT .0184 ,0295 -. 1190 -.0619586 that indicate that receiving more favorable treatment is
TEACHEXT .1886 -.0572 -.0742 -. 1745 correlated with sibling well-being (Dunn et al., 1991).
TEACHINT -.0451 -.2902 -.5837** -. 1684 Analysis of the interaction effect of parental percep-
Note: PDD = pervasive developmental disorder; DS = Down syn- tion of the degree of difficulty of the handicapped child
drome; PEXT = parent report of externalizing problems; PINT = and healthy sibling perception of parental differential
parent report of internalizing problems; TEACHEXT = teacher treatment is interesting. The difference in direction of
report of externalizing problems; TEACHINT = teacher report of
internalizing problems. perceived differential treatment in the PDD versus the
* p < .05; * * p < .01. DS siblings is consistent; the PDD siblings perceived
themselves as preferred in the presence of parental descrip-
ent and teacher reports of externalizing behavior prob- tions of a high level of difficulty in the handicapped
lems. Social support from teachers was negatively corre- child, with the DS sibling perceiving the handicapped
lated with teacher reports of externalizing and sibling to be preferred under the same circumstances. The
internalizing problems. Social support from classmates finding was more evident at initial sampling than 3 years
and close friends was also negatively correlated with later, suggesting some degree of sibling accommodation
teacher reports of internalizing behavior problems. For to the difficulty of the handicapped sibling with time
this group of children at time 2, social support became and increasing maturation.
an important factor in ameliorating behavioral adjust- In addition to positive self-competence, the receipt of
ment problems (Table 5). social support has been reported to enhance resilience in
Siblings of Control Children. At time 2, social support children (Garmezy, 1984; Werner, 1989). There is also
from classmates was negatively correlated with teacher strong evidence for an inverse relationship between social
reports of internalizing problems. So for this group of support and levels of psychological symptomatology
children, there was a change in both the source of social demonstrated by children (Barrera, 1981; Compas et al.,
support and its ameliorating effects (Table 5). 1986). Barrera noted that in considering social support
it is important to consider both the provider and the
subjective appraisal of the support. This was done in our
DISCUSSION
study within the context of perceived parental differen-
The results of this study confirm the complexity of tial treatment. For the siblings of the handicapped groups
sibling perceived parental differential treatment in fami- (PDD and DS), social support became a more signifi-
lies with a disabled child, as well as the importance of cant factor over time. The difference in direction of per-
examining sibling relationships over time rather than ceived parental preferential treatment remains consistent
relying on a single cross-sectional observation. For both in the context of social support, with lower levels of social
the PDD and DS siblings, adjustment problems related support associated with parent and teacher reports of
to perceived parental differential treatment became more adjustment difficulties. At both time samplings, social
evident over the 3-year period. In addition, as we have support received from teachers in the case of PDD sib-
demonstrated previously (Fisman et al., 1996), living lings was important in mitigating against adjustment

J. AM. ACAD. C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998 1323

W O L F E T AL.

problems. The protective effect of a significant adult as with the PDD child (Fisman et al., 1996; Wolf et al.,
ouside of the family system who maintains a supportive 1989), the perception by the nonhandicapped child that
relationship with a child at risk (in this case the sibling of he/she is receiving differentially positive treatment from
a PDD child) has been well described (Rae-Grant et al. a caretaker parent may give rise to a complex variety of
1989; Werner, 1989). emotional reactions. Feelings of anxiety, guilt, and anger
While maternal differential treatment has been associ- may be expressed by internalizing and/or externalizing
ated with the quality of sibling relationships (Brody et al., the distress. In spite of the perception of being preferred,
1987) in families of normally developing school-age over time, associated feelings of low self-competence be-
children, this was not the case in our study. Sibling per- come increasingly predictive of adjustment problems.
ception of differential treatment, whether toward them- This suggests that there is a significant impact on the
selves or their handicapped sibling, was not associated child's evolving internal working model of himselWherself
with low warmth in the sibling relationship. While a and impairment of hidher development of self-esteem.
warm sibling relationship and low sibling conflict are of In families with a DS child, in which the levels of paren-
themselves protective against externalizing behavior tal stress are lower (Fisman et al., 1996) and the DS child
problems for DS and normally developing children more acceptable (Noh et al., 1989), the self-competence
(Fisman et al., 1996), these factors do not seem to be of the healthy sibling may be impacted in a different fash-
related to perceived parental differential treatment. It ion. Where siblings perceive that their handicapped DS
may be that differential treatment as perceived by the sib- sibling is preferred over them and they report lower self-
ling, when associated with feelings of low self-competence competence, they are described by their parent and teacher
and low social support, is associated with sibling adjust- as having more internalizing symptoms. This becomes
ment rather than sibling relationship problems. more evident over time. A different mechanism from
The main drawback to this study is the absence of ob- that in the PDD families is probably operational. With
servational measures of caretaker differential treatment. more time and attention devoted to the handicapped
This is offset by the use of three different respondents: child, the nondisabled sibling may feel neglected and
the healthy siblings, their teacher, and their caretaker.This ignored (McHale and Pawletko, 1992).This is also reflec-
allows us to evaluate preferential treatment from the sib- tive of the tendency to externalize distress at a younger
ling's perspective and adjustment from the parent and age while developing more internalizing symptoms with
teacher viewpoint. Research with a disabled child has not the transition into puberty. Finally, securing a supportive
routinely included the perceptions of the sibling, but relationship for the healthy sibling outside of the stressed
only that of the mother, which may be biased (Thompson family system may be an important component of inter-
et al., 1994). vention for the at-risk PDD sibling and serve as a ben-
Families with a disabled sibling represent a potentially eficial factor in determining the child's adjustment. These
interesting context in which to explore the effects of dif- findings are important in planning effective preventive
ferential treatment. Given the extreme levels of differen- interventions for the siblings of disabled children.
tial treatment in the context of the handicapped child's
family, this provides a unique opportunity to study dif- REFERENCES
ferential treatment and its effects even where siblings are
Abidin RR (1986). Parenting Stress Index. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric
close in age (Powell and Ogle, 1985) regardless of the Psychology Press
gender and ordinal makeup. In addition, the use of two Abidin RR (1990), Parenting Stress Index-Short Form. Charlottesville, VA:
Pediatric Psychology Press
cross-sectional data sets on the same children at 3-year Achenbach T, Edelbrock C (1983), Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist
intervals has revealed more associations for differential and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont
behavior than would a single cross-sectional analysis. It Department of Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association (1987), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
is likely that, over time, direct parental behavior may Mental Disorders, 3rd edition-revised (DSM-Ill-R). Washington, DC:
become less important than differential behavior in pre- American Psychiatric Association
Barrera M (1981), Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents:
dicting sibling adjustment. assessment issues. In: Social Networks and Social Support, Goctlieb BH,
ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp 69-96
Clinical Implications Bischof LG, Tingstrom D H (1991), Siblings of children with chronic disabil-
ities: psychological and behavioral characteristics. Counsel Psycho1 Q
It seems that within the family with a disabled child 4311-321 (special issue: Disability in the Family: Research, Theory and
who generates extremely high levels of caretaker distress, Practice)

1324 J . A M . ACAD. CHILD ADOLESC. PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, DECEMBER 1998

 DIFFERENTIAL PARENTAL T R E A T M E N T

Boyle MH, Offord DR, Hofmann HG et al. (1987), Ontario Child Health Garmezy N (1984), Children vulnerable to major mental disorders: risk and
Study, I: methodology. Arch Gen Prychiatry 44:826-831 protective factors. In: Psychiatry Update, Vol 3, Greenspoon L, ed.
Boyle MH, Offord DR, Racine Y, Sandford M, Szatmari P, Flemming JE Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, pp 9 1-104
(1993), Evaluation of the original Ontario Child Health Study scales. Harter S (1985),Manualfor the Self-PerceptionPro$k. Denver: University of
Can J Psychiatry 38:397-405 Colorado
Brody G, Stoneman Z, Burke M (1987), Child temperament, maternal Harter S (1986), Manualfor Social Supportfor Children. Denver: University
differential behavior and sibling relations. Deu Prychol 23:354-362 of Colorado
Brody G, Stoneman 2 (19871, Sibling conflict: contributions of sibling Lobato D, Faust D, Spirit0 A (1988), Examining the effects of chronic dis-
themselves, the parent-sibling relationship and the broader family ease and disability on children’s sibling relationships. J Pediatr Psycho1
system./ Child Contemp Sor 19:39-53 13:389-407
Brody GH, Stoneman Z, McCoy JK (1992), Association of maternal and McHale S, Pawletko T (1992), Differential treatment of siblings in two
paternal direct and indirect behavior with sibling relationships: contem- family contexts. Child Dev 63:68-81
poraneous and longitudinal analyses. Child Dev 63:89-92 McHale SM, Gamble WD (1989), Sibling relationships of children with dis-
Cadman D, Boyle M, Offord DR (1988), The Ontario Child Health Study: abled and nondisabled brothers and sisters. Dev Psychol25:421-429
social adjustment and mental health of siblings of children with chronic McKeever P (1983). Siblings of chronically ill children: a literature review with
health problems.] Dev Behau Pediatr 9:117-121 implications for research and practice. Am J Orthoprychiatry53:209-2 18
Compas BE, Slavin LA, Wagner BM, Vanetta K (1986), Relationships of life Noh S, Dumas JE, Wolf LC, Fisman SN (1989), Delineating sources of stress
events and social support with psychological dysfunction among adoles- in parents of exceptional children. Fam Relations 38:456-46 1
cents. / Youth Adoksc 15:205-221 Powell T H , Ogle PA (1985), Brothers and Sisters:A Special Part ofExceptional
Dunn J, Plomin R (1990), Separate Lives: Why Siblings Are So Dzfferent. New Families. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes
York: Basic Rae-Grant NI, Thomas BH, Offord DR, Boyle M H (1989), Risk, protective
Dunn J, Stocker C (1989), The significanceof differences in siblings’ expe- factors and the prevalence of behavioral and emotional disorders in chil-
riences within the family. In: Family Systems and Lz$span Development, dren and adolescents./ A m Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 28:262-268
Kreppner K, Lerner R, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 289-301 Seligman M (1987), Adaptation of children to a chronically ill or mentally
Dunn J, Stocker C, Plomin R (1991), Nonshared experiences within a handicapped sibling. Can MedArsoc/ 136:1249-1252
family: correlates of behavioral problems in middle childhood. In: Annual Siemon M (1984), Siblings of chronically ill or disabled children: meeting
Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, Chess S , Hertzig M, their needs. Nurs Clin North Am 19:295-307
eds. New York: BrunnedMazel, pp 27-44 Stocker C, Dunn J, Plomin R (1989), Sibling relationships: links with child
Dyson LL (1989), Adjustment of siblings of handicapped children: a com- temperament, maternal behavior and family structure. Child Deu 63:
parison. / Pediatr Psychiatry 14215-229 82-92
Fisman SN, Wolf L, Ellison D, Gillis B, Freeman T, Szatmari P (1996), Risk Thompson AB, Curtin ME, O’Rear MR (1994), The psychosocial adjust-
and protective factors affecting the adjustment of siblings of children ment of well siblings of chronically ill children. Child Health Care 23:
with chronic disabilities.J A m AcadChildAhksc Psychiatry 35:1532-1541 2 11-226
Furman W, Adler T (1986), Children’s and parents’ perceptions of family Werner EE (1989), Children of the Garden Island. Sci Am 260:106-111
relationships. Paper presented at the second International Conference on Wolf LC, Noh S, Fisman SN, Speechley M (1989), Psychological effects of
Personal Relations, Madison, Wl parenting stress on parents of autistic children. J Autism Deu Disord
Furman W, Buhrmeister D (1985), Children’s perceptions of the quality of 19:157-166
sibling relations. Child Dev 56:448-461

J. A M . A C A D . C H I L D A D O L E S C . PSYCHIATRY, 37:12, D E C E M B E R 1998 1325