You are welcome to Sara. It was great to talk to you the other day. Feel free to call me with more questions, okay? Erica In a parallel analysis with threat, observed negativity, and more recent and recent status, there were no significant interaction effects when non-significant effects were treated. In the latter model, fear of being an older sibling, β = 0.17, p = 0.043, and with perceived threat, β = 0.56, p <.001, but not with observed negativity, β = − 03, p = 0.67; F (3, 51) = 19.22, R2 = .30, p <.001. Whenever possible, do not commit. Only enter if there is a risk of physical damage. If you always intervene, you may create other problems. Children can start waiting for your help and waiting for you to get to the rescue instead of learning how to solve the problems themselves. There is also a risk that you will tell – accidentally – a child that another is still "protected", which could cause even more resentment. For the same reason, saved children may feel that they can get away with more, because they are always "saved" by a parent. Younger and older siblings followed the frequent and well-validated perceptions of Children`s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict (CPIC); Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992), which consists of three subscales with item responses on a scale of 1 to 3 (false, sometimes true, true). Self-charge (sum of 9 points) assessed his guilt and the child`s responsibility in interparental conflicts (for example.B.
« I know it`s my fault if my parents argue »). The perceived threat was summarized in 12 points reflecting the child`s fear of the consequences of interparental conflict (e.g.B. « When my parents argue, I worry they`ll get divorced). In this sample, the alpha reliability coefficients for younger and older siblings were .91 and .91 for self-guilt and .74 and .82 for perceived threats. The properties of the conflict, the third subscale, were calculated from the sum of 19 elements intended to cover the frequency, intensity and resolution of conflicts, such as « I often see my parents arguing » and « My parents are really angry when they argue » (∝ = .93 and .91). In the present study, negative sibling interactions appeared to link self-incrimination to fear. While it may seem counterintuitive that fraternal naivety plays a protective role, this reflects previous work that has highlighted the potential benefits of fraternal conflicts (e.g. B Brody, 1998).
The negative behaviors observed in this study – for example.B. denomination, bias, quarrels – should not be confused with the type of malignant and non-reciprocal aggression that characterizes fraternal violence and is associated with subsequent emotional difficulties (Caffaro, 2011). Previous studies have established unexpected positive or neutral associations between moderate tenacity of siblings and desirable outcomes of coping (e.g. B East &Khoo, 2005; Pike et al., 2005). These findings run counter to an implicit assumption in the clinical literature that children would gain less from fighting with their siblings (e.g. B Kennedy & Kramer, 2008). Although stories of intense devotion or rivalry have characterized the narrative of the fraternal relationship since ancient times (e.g.B. Artemisia and Apollo, Cain and Abel, to name just a few archetypes), reality may not be so polarized; In everyday life, fraternal interactions contain a mixture of positive and negative dimensions (Buhrmester, 1992).
In the present study, this mixed nature was reflected in the lack of correlation between positive behavior and negative sibling behavior, when coded by an independent observer. . . .