Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children’s

Receptive Vocabulary
WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Sibship size has been AUTHORS: Heather Prime, MA, Sharon Pauker, MA, André
negatively associated with children’s language, cognitive, and Plamondon, PhD, Michal Perlman, PhD, and Jennifer
academic outcomes. This phenomenon is often explained in terms Jenkins, PhD, C Psych
of resource dilution, wherein more children in the home is Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development,
associated with fewer parental resources allocated to each child. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
KEY WORDS
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: The current study identifies siblings, child development, parent-infant/child interaction,
language development, risk factors
a moderator of this relationship. Specifically, if children’s next-in-
age older siblings exhibit high levels of cognitive sensitivity then Ms Prime carried out the initial analyses and drafted and
revised the initial manuscript. Ms Pauker coordinated and
sibship size is not significantly related to children’s vocabulary.
supervised data collection and critically reviewed the
manuscript; Dr Plamondon carried out the revised analyses and
reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Perlman designed the
key data collection instruments and reviewed and revised the
manuscript; Dr Jenkins, as Principal Investigator of the Kids,
abstract Families and Places Study, conceptualized and designed the
study, designed the data collection instruments, coordinated
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to examine the relation- and supervised data collection, and reviewed and revised the
manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as
ship between sibship size and children’s vocabulary as a function of submitted.
quality of sibling interactions. It was hypothesized that coming from www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2012-2874
a larger sibship (ie, 3+ children) would be related to lower receptive
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2874
vocabulary in children. However, we expected this association to be
Accepted for publication Oct 30, 2013
moderated by the level of cognitive sensitivity shown by children’s
Address correspondence to Jennifer Jenkins, PhD, C Psych,
next-in-age older siblings. Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development,
METHODS: Data on 385 children (mean age = 3.15 years) and their next- OISE/UT, 252 Bloor St West, Floor 9-233, Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6,
Canada. E-mail: jenny.jenkins@utoronto.ca
in-age older siblings (mean age = 5.57 years) were collected and
included demographic questionnaires, direct testing of children’s PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).

receptive vocabulary, and videos of mother-child and sibling interactions. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
Sibling dyads were taped engaging in a cooperative building task and FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have
no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
tapes were coded for the amount of cognitive sensitivity the older sibling
exhibited toward the younger sibling. FUNDING: All phases of this study were supported by the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant 456940, the
RESULTS: Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted and showed Connaught Global Grant from the University of Toronto, and The
an interaction between sibship size and sibling cognitive sensitivity in Atkinson Charitable Foundation.
the prediction of children’s receptive vocabulary; children exposed to POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated
they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
large sibships whose next-in-age older sibling exhibited higher levels
of cognitive sensitivity were less likely to show low vocabulary skills
when compared with those children exposed to large sibships whose
siblings showed lower levels of cognitive sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Children who show sensitivity to the cognitive needs of
their younger siblings provide a rich environment for language devel-
opment. The negative impact of large sibships on language develop-
ment is moderated by the presence of an older sibling who shows
high cognitive sensitivity. Pediatrics 2014;133:e394–e401

e394 PRIME et al
Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
 ARTICLE

The important influence that social sibship size does not account for the The aim of the current study was to
interactions have on children’s social association between sibship size and examine whether the level of cognitive
and cognitive development is well educational attainment. sensitivity children receive from their
established.1–4 Indeed, children’s de- Given that effect sizes in the relation- next-in-age older sibling moderates the
velopment occurs through active par- ship between sibship size and children’s strength of the relationship between
ticipation in social interactions with attainment are modest,26 compensa- sibship size and children’s receptive
the guidance, support, and challenge of tory processes may be operating.27–29 vocabulary. Effects of siblings have
their interaction partners.5 The content In this study, large families can be been demonstrated for both receptive
of these interactions is more readily considered a risk factor, making chil- and expressive language.41–43 However,
internalized when partners operate at dren vulnerable to poor language de- as our sample was linguistically di-
a cognitively appropriate level.6,7 There velopment. Protective factors serve to verse, there is evidence that receptive
has been a recent interest in parental weaken the association between early gains are observed before those of
sensitivity to children’s cognitive and risk and child outcomes.30 expressive gains in English language
mental states,8–10 which has been learners,44,45 and receptive and ex-
It has been suggested that increased
demonstrated to foster children’s so- pressive vocabulary are highly corre-
attention be given to the role of siblings
cial and cognitive development.11–13 lated (r = 0.83),46 we examined receptive
in children’s development because of
Cognitive sensitivity describes the ex- vocabulary only. All children in the
the extent and intensity of interactions
tent to which an individual considers study had a minimum of 1 older sibling.
between siblings.31,32 Having siblings
the knowledge and abilities of their It was hypothesized that coming from
has been associated with enhanced
interaction partner during a dyadic a larger sibship (ie, 3+ children) would
conversational and communicative abil-
interaction.14 be related to lower receptive vocabu-
ities, social skills, and theory of mind
lary. However, we expected that this
It has been suggested that the inter- development.33–37 Although children who
would be qualified by an interaction
actions a parent has with a particular have siblings receive relatively less lin-
between sibship size and sibling cog-
child suffer with the addition of children guistic input from their parents, obser-
nitive sensitivity; children from larger
into the family. The resource dilution vations of parent-sibling interactions as
sibships will show better receptive
hypothesis posits that as the sibship well as their own interactions with sib- vocabulary when exposed to a high
size increases, the proportion of pa- lings afford them increased exposure to versus low cognitively sensitive older
rental resources accrued by any 1 child discourse overall.10,18 Additionally, chil- sibling. Cognitively sensitive siblings
decreases.15,16 The negative influence dren are sensitive to what their siblings may have a compensatory effect in low
of sibship size on parental investment understand, adapting teaching behavior resource homes (ie, large sibships).
in the domains of caregiving, cognitive as a function of task difficulty, the age of We included a number of covariates
learning, and interpersonal relations the learners, and the learners’ behav- based on their demonstrated associa-
has been demonstrated.17 Similarly, iors.38,39 However, there are variations in tion with children’s receptive language
there is evidence that later-born chil- preschoolers’ abilities to respond to the or hypothesized predictor variables:
dren receive less language input from cognitive needs of their siblings during younger sibling gender, older sibling
their parents compared with firstborn interactions, which are related to their receptive vocabulary, gender compo-
children, and that the quality of input own sociocognitive skills.14 Individual sition and age gap of dyad, household
is less supportive of language de- differences in siblings’ early relationship income/assets, language spoken in the
velopment.18 A negative relationship quality are relatively stable over time.40 home, ethnicity, maternal cognitive
between sibship size and measures of Thus, exploration into early sibling sensitivity, and education.
children’s attainment has been dem- interactions may shed light on pro-
onstrated,15,16,19,20 which appears to tective factors favoring resiliency to
METHODS
persist into adulthood.21–23 Addition- adverse yet normative environments
ally, later-born children show poorer during early childhood. Given the in- Sample
vocabulary skills in comparison with dividual differences observed in chil- The current study is embedded within
firstborn children.24,25 The negative ef- dren’s sensitivity to their siblings’ a larger longitudinal birth-cohort
fect of sibship size persists after ac- cognitive needs, this might be an im- study. The goals of the larger study
counting for the effect of socioeconomic portant protective factor to consider were to examine genetic and envi-
status,15,19 indicating that the associa- when exploring the effect of sibship ronmental influences on children’s
tion between socioeconomic status and size on children’s development. socio-emotional development by using

PEDIATRICS Volume 133, Number 2, February 2014 e395

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
a sibling design. Participants were Demographics and participant char- Videotapes of sibling interactions were
recruited through Healthy Babies Healthy acteristics are outlined in Table 1. coded by using a measure of cognitive
Children, a program responsible for sensitivity,14 defined as the 3 interlinked
contacting the parents of all newborns Measures capacities of mind-reading, mutuality,
within days of the infant’s birth. In- and communicative clarity. Coders
clusion criteria for participating in the Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity watched the 5-minute film clip in its
Intensive component of the Kids, Fami- Sibling pairs were filmed engaging in entirety and then rated the older sib-
lies and Places study included an a cooperative building task. 48 Dyads ling on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
English-speaking mother, a newborn were instructed to sit on a yoga mat from “Not at all true” (1) to “Very true”
.1500 g (the younger sibling) with and use Duplo building blocks to (5) on each of the 11 cognitive sensi-
a sibling ,4 years of age (the older replicate a design presented in a tivity statements. Items started with
sibling), and maternal agreement to be picture in 5 minutes. Each sibling “This person is…” and examples in-
videotaped. Thirty-four percent of fami- was only allowed to touch 2 of the 4 clude: sensitive to what his/her part-
lies approached in Toronto agreed to colors of Duplo blocks to ensure ner knows and/or understands; good
take part. At Time 1 (infants were 2 collaboration for completion. Inter- at rephrasing what his/her partner
months old), 501 families took part. viewers were present in the room does not understand; gives positive
Families were followed when the new- with the dyads during the task but feedback to reinforce his/her partner;
born was age 18 months (Time 2) and 3 did not provide instructions beyond clear in his/her requests for help. The
years (Time 3). Observational data and protocol. If children finished the de- coding approach presented in the
direct testing were carried out on the sign before the end of 5 minutes, they current paper provides comparable
newborn and the next-in-age older sibling were given a second model to repli- reliability and validity to a more time-
at all waves. The Intensive component cate. All children were stopped after intensive observational coding method
of the Kids, Families and Places sample 5 minutes, regardless of completion. while reducing resources.14,49 The
was similar to the general population The majority of dyads were engaged mean was taken across items, and in-
of Toronto and Hamilton (2006 Canada with the task for 80% or more of the ternal consistency of the composite
Census Data) in terms of number of 5 minutes. was high, a = 0.89. Coders included
persons in the household and personal
income, but had a lower proportion of
non-intact families, fewer immigrants, TABLE 1 Study Characteristics
and more educated mothers.47 Characteristic %
Maternal ethnicity Caucasian 57.1
Current Study Black 7.0
South Asian 14.0
The current studyisbased onTime 3 data East and South East Asian 13.0
(N = 385 families), as this was the first Other 8.8
Language spoken in the home English only 79.2
occasion of measurement for receptive Immigrant status Canadian born 55.1
vocabulary and cognitive sensitivity. At- Sibship size 2 60.8
3 or more 39.2
trition from T1 to T3 was 23.2%. Dropout
Gender Younger (male) 51.7
was significantly related to lower Older (male) 52.0
income/assets, t(173) = 24.15, P , Same-sex dyad 49.1
Birth order Younger (youngest) 84.4
.001, lower maternal education, t(161) = Younger (middle) 15.6
22.55, P , .05, as well as race (ie, Older (middle) 27.8
individuals who endorsed being black), Older (oldest) 71.9
Mean (SD; range)
x2 (1) = 7.27, P , .05; these variables
are included in the analysis. Consent Maternal education, y 15.59 (2.47)
Age, y Younger 3.15 (0.27; 2.5–4.5)
was obtained at the start of the home Older 5.57 (0.77; 4.0–7.7)
visit. Data included demographic ques- Age gap 2.42 (0.72)
tionnaires, direct testing of children, Household income Range $65 000–$74 999
Receptive vocabulary Younger 94.78 (15.45)
genetic testing (not included in the Older 107.51 (13.42)
present report), and videos of mother- Cognitive Sensitivity Sibling 2.73 (0.71)
child and sibling interactions. Maternal 3.56 (0.77)

e396 PRIME et al
Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
 ARTICLE

a mix of undergraduates and gradu- English as a criterion for study enlist- covariates and 2 predictor variables
ates who were trained by an expert ment. However, the extent to which the (ie, sibship size and older sibling cog-
coder. Inter-rater reliability was tested heritage language was also used in the nitive sensitivity). Additionally, explo-
by double-coding 10% of the inter- home was reported by mothers and ration into a moderator effect involves
actions, and reliability checks were measured through observation during an interaction term (older sibling cog-
conducted throughout the coding pe- the mother-child and sibling interac- nitive sensitivity 3 sibship size). For
riod to minimize drift. Disagreements tions (0 = English only; heritage lan- our hypothesis to be supported, we
were resolved by taking the score of guage for more than 1 sentence = 1). expect a significant interaction term in
the expert coder. Inter-rater reliability These 2 indices overlapped (r = 0.57) which the relationship between sibship
on the composite score was accept- and, given that the latter showed the size and receptive vocabulary is strong
able, a = 0.72. All coders were blind to strongest relationship to child lan- when cognitive sensitivity is low and
the hypotheses of the study. guage, this was used in analyses as weak when it is high. Centering of
a covariate. Dummy variables were continuous variables was carried out
Receptive Vocabulary created for self-reported ethnicity: to minimize multicollinearity. Interac-
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Black, South Asian, and East/South East tion terms were computed by using the
a standardized test of receptive vo- Asian (8.9% were categorized as centered variables. This was done be-
cabulary skills, requires children to “Other”), with European as a reference. fore imputation and analyses.54,55
point to 1 of 4 pictures indicating a word Mothers reported their years of edu-
that is read out loud. The test yields 1 cation and the number of children aged RESULTS
overall standardized summary score 0 to 18 years in the household, which Preliminary Analyses
representing the child’s level of re- were recoded into small (0 = 2 children)
and large sibships (1 = 3+ children). Means and SDs are presented in Table 1.
ceptive language skills for their age. Pearson correlations (F for binary)
The test has been shown to have good revealed small to medium correlations
Data Analysis
psychometric properties.50 in expected directions (see Table 2). An
Missing Data examination of the study variables
Maternal Cognitive Sensitivity Demographic variables and maternal indicates that younger siblings’ re-
Maternal cognitive sensitivity toward cognitive sensitivity had minimal ceptive vocabulary is higher when their
theyoungersiblingwasmeasuredduring missing data (,5%), whereas chil- siblings demonstrate higher cognitive
the home visit in the same way as dren’s receptive vocabulary and sibling sensitivity and lower when they are
the sibling cognitive sensitivity outlined cognitive sensitivity had more missing from large sibships. Siblings were less
above. The composite showed excellent data (range = 5%–21%). Multiple im- sensitive when they came from large
internal consistency (a = 0.92). Inter- putation, one of the best techniques for sibships.
rater reliability was tested in the same the treatment of missing data,51 was
way as that described for the sibling used. All variables with missing data Main Analyses
measure (a = 0.84). were imputed. Multiple imputation Results of the regression analyses can
generates multiple data sets where the be found in Table 3. With respect to
Demographics missing values are substituted with covariates, sibling vocabulary and
Younger sibling gender (0 = female; 1 = plausible values based on patterns of maternal cognitive sensitivity were
male), dyad gender composition (0 = non-missing data. Analyses are con- significantly predictive of higher re-
mixed; 1 = same-sex), and dyad age gap ducted on each data set and parameter ceptive vocabulary scores. Additionally,
(age of older sibling – age of younger estimates and SEs are pooled across children from families who spoke their
sibling child) were included as cova- the set of analyses by using Rubin’s heritage language during the home
riates. Income/assets were examined rule.52,53 MPLUS 7 was used to generate visit had significantly lower vocabulary
through questions regarding family 25 complete data sets by using the scores. Large sibship was significantly
assets (eg, house size, ownership sta- model variables. associated with lower vocabulary
tus, cars) and annual household in- scores but sibling cognitive sensitivity
come. Assets and income items were Procedure was not. Finally, the interaction be-
standardized and a mean was com- Regression analyses were conducted tween sibship size and sibling cognitive
puted, with higher scores indicating using maximum likelihood estimation sensitivity was a significant predictor
higher income/assets. Mothers spoke in MPLUS 7. The model included 12 of children’s receptive vocabulary. The

PEDIATRICS Volume 133, Number 2, February 2014 e397

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
 16
model accounted for a significant

1
amount of the variance of children’s

0.17**
receptive vocabulary scores, r2 =
15

1
36.4%.

20.16**
20.13*
To probe the nature of the significant
14

1
interaction, we plotted the association
between sibship size (small versus

0.02
20.01
20.10
13

large) and children’s receptive vo-

1
cabulary at different levels of sibling

0.04
0.06
0.09
0.05
cognitive sensitivity scores (Fig 1).54
12

1
Testing of simple slopes revealed that

0.22**
the association between sibship size

20.12*
0.02
0.01

20.01
11

1 and receptive vocabulary was signifi-

cant at low levels of cognitive sensi-

0.15**
0.43**
tivity but not at high levels of sibling
0.01
0.01
20.05
20.04
10

cognitive sensitivity. For children who

had a less sensitive sibling, coming
0.28**

20.20**
0.15**
0.34**
from a large sibship predicted lower
20.05
0.05
20.02
9

receptive vocabulary scores (b =

20.616, P , .001). For children who
0.24**
0.23**

0.17**
0.12*
20.01

0.06
20.09

0.11

had a more sensitive sibling, coming

8

from a large sibship was not related

to receptive vocabulary (b = 0.043, not
20.31**

20.32**
20.13*
20.08

0.02
20.05
20.02
20.10
20.01

significant).
7

To ensure that covariates and their

interactions with sibship size did not
20.15**

20.16**
0.12*
20.04
20.01

20.05
20.03
20.01
0.05
20.05
6

account for the interaction of interest,

1

we tested a series of additional

0.31**

20.14**

20.14**

interactions (all covariates by sibship

20.12*

20.02
20.02

0.08
20.07
20.03

0.06
20.09
5

size with each entered individually).

1

Given the possibility that the re-

20.15**
20.18**
20.16**

0.18**

lationship between sibship size and

20.11*

0.10*

20.11*
20.09
20.09

20.08
0.10

20.09
4

1
TABLE 2 Pearson Correlations (F for Binary) Between Study Variables

sibling cognitive sensitivity may have

varied by the covariates, we also
20.16**

0.20**

20.34**
20.29**

20.23**
20.11*

20.13*

tested these 3-way interactions. None

20.06

20.05
0.02

20.03
20.03
20.08
3

of the 3-way interactions were sig-

nificant and none of the additional
20.47**
20.32**
20.45**
20.36**
20.37**
0.15**
0.35**
0.46**

0.36**

2-way interactions substantially re-

0.01

20.01
0.06

0.00
0.10
2

duced the moderation effect between

sibship size and siblings’ cognitive
0.37**
20.20**
20.29**

20.15**
20.20**
0.47**
0.37**
0.42**

0.20**
0.33**
20.11*
0.01

0.04
0.02
0.02

sensitivity.
1
1

DISCUSSION
16. Younger receptive vocabulary
9. Maternal cognitive sensitivity
10. Older receptive vocabulary

15. Older cognitive sensitivity

Although there is evidence for dilution

7. Use of heritage language
5. Ethnicity ‘East/SE Asian’
3. Ethnicity ‘South Asian’

of parental resources in larger fami-

8. Maternal education

12. Same-sex gender

lies,15–18 the effect is modest in size,

11. Sibling age gap
6. Ethnicity ‘Other’
4. Ethnicity ‘Black’

13. Younger male

2. Ethnicity ‘Euro’

14. Large sibship

1. Income/assets

which suggests that other factors may

act as protective factors. We hypoth-
** P , .01.
* P , .05;

esized that 1 such factor is sibling

cognitive sensitivity.

e398 PRIME et al
Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
 ARTICLE

TABLE 3 Summary of Regression Analysis Examining the Role of Sibship Size and Sibling robust after controlling for covariates
Cognitive Sensitivity in Predicting Receptive Vocabulary
often predictive of children’s vocabu-
Younger Receptive Vocabulary b SE b 2-Tailed lary: language spoken in the home,
P Value
maternal cognitive sensitivity and ed-
Covariates
Income/assets 1.932 1.423 0.100 .17
ucation, ethnicity, and income/assets.
Ethnicity ‘Other’ 24.274 2.808 20.275 .13 The observed protective effect is in
Ethnicity ‘Black’ 22.846 2.495 20.182 .25 line with past research that has shown
Ethnicity ‘South Asian’ 20.248 3.196 20.015 .94 that non-parental adults can buffer
Ethnicity ‘East and South East Asian’ 22.041 2.640 20.131 .44
Use of heritage language at home 27.256 2.017 20.466 ,.001 children from the adverse effects of
Maternal education 20.313 0.379 20.051 .41 large sibships.56
Maternal cognitive sensitivity 3.646 1.098 0.181 .001
Older receptive vocabulary 0.266 0.069 0.229 ,.001 The current study adds to growing re-
Age gap 21.380 1.006 20.064 .17 search highlighting the importance of
Same-sex dyad 0.467 1.456 0.030 .75 partner attunement to children’s cog-
Younger male 21.726 1.465 20.111 .24
Predictors
nitive states, extending it to siblings.
Large sibship 24.428 1.595 20.284 .006 Cognitively sensitive older siblings,
Older cognitive sensitivity 21.253 1.528 20.056 .41 who provided positively valenced
Interaction
feedback and promoted turn-taking (ie,
Sibship size * sibling cognitive 7.241 2.298 0.215 .002
sensitivity mutuality), were sensitive and re-
sponsive to partner’s abilities (ie,
mind-reading), and promoted a mutual
The goal of the current study was to levels of cognitive sensitivity. Children understanding of the goals of the task
examine the protective effect of older from large sibships whose older sib- (ie, communicative clarity), were ef-
siblings’ cognitive sensitivity on youn- lings demonstrated higher levels of fective partners.
ger children’s receptive vocabulary for cognitive sensitivity did not differ sig-
There are several clinical implications
children in large sibships. Children nificantly from children from smaller
of these findings. First, although re-
from larger sibships who received sibships (high or low cognitive sensi-
search has concentrated more on the
higher levels of cognitive sensitivity tivity). Thus, our hypothesis that older
importance of parents in early lan-
from their older siblings were less sibling cognitive sensitivity would
guage development, older siblings play
likely to show poor receptive vocabu- buffer younger children from the neg-
a central role. The majority of children
lary when compared with those chil- ative role of large sibships was sup-
spend more time with siblings than with
dren whose siblings exhibited lower ported. Notably, this pattern was
parents.32 Children who have siblings
are afforded heightened exposure to
certain contexts that are associated
with social and cognitive development,
including pretend play, conflict, and
conversation.10,57–60 In these and other
contexts, siblings provide one another
with varying levels of stimulation,31,32,61
which are important for understanding
development. Second, being raised in
a large sibship is not a risk factor for
poor language development if children
receive the appropriate stimulation
from an older sibling. Third, early de-
velopmental outcomes are best un-
derstood by thinking about the ways
FIGURE 1
Younger siblings’ receptive vocabulary (mean) as a function of sibship size and older sibling cognitive in which environmental experiences
sensitivity. Note: Regression lines for relations between sibship size and children’s receptive vocab- combine. Thus children who are raised
ulary as moderated by cognitive sensitivity (1 SD above and below the mean; 2-way interaction). Slope
of low cognitive sensitivity line is significant, b = 20.616, P , .001; slope of high cognitive sensitivity in less than optimal conditions (large
line is not b = 0.043, not significant. families) show resilience in the presence

PEDIATRICS Volume 133, Number 2, February 2014 e399

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
of compensatory experiences (sensitive population on some but not all indices. home. Finally, to limit burden on respond-
siblings). Understanding the combina- Third, given that younger children may ents, children’s expressive vocabulary was
tions of risk and protective processes in differentially elicit sensitivity from their not assessed.
children’s lives is central to our ability to partners,63 these partner effects are
improve population health.62 important to consider in future work. CONCLUSIONS
The present findings should be con- Fourth, the inter-rater reliability of the Children who demonstrate sensitivity
sidered in light of several limitations. sibling cognitive sensitivity variable to their siblings’ cognitive needs offer
First, the cross-sectional design of the was acceptable but not high, which them a rich context for language de-
current study limits the conclusions we might result in an underestimation of velopment. Delineating the beneficial
can make regarding direction of asso- the true effect. Fifth, we were only able interactions that are inherent to sibling
ciation between the protective factor to investigate the cognitive sensitivity relationships can help us understand
studied and child vocabulary. Second, received from the next-in-age older the family processes influencing child-
the sample was similar to the general sibling as opposed to all siblings in the ren’s development.64

REFERENCES
1. Landry SH, Miller-Loncar CL, Smith KE, 10. Jenkins JM, Turrell SL, Kogushi Y, Lollis S, 19. Blake J. Number of siblings and educa-
Swank PR. The role of early parenting in Ross HS. A longitudinal investigation of the tional attainment. Science. 1989;245(4913):
children’s development of executive pro- dynamics of mental state talk in families. 32–36
cesses. Dev Neuropsychol. 2002;21(1):15–41 Child Dev. 2003;74(3):905–920 20. Steelman LC, Powell B, Werum R, Carter S.
2. Landry SH, Swank PR, Smith KE, Assel MA, 11. Meins E, Fernyhough C, Wainwright R, Das Reconsidering the effects of sibling con-
Gunnewig SB. Enhancing early literacy Gupta M, Fradley E, Tuckey M. Maternal figuration: recent advances and challenges.
skills for preschool children: bringing mind-mindedness and attachment security Annu Rev Sociol. 2002;28(1):243–269
a professional development model to scale. as predictors of theory of mind understanding. 21. Holmgren S, Molander B, Nilsson L. In-
J Learn Disabil. 2006;39(4):306–324 Child Dev. 2002;73(6):1715–1726 telligence and executive functioning in adult
3. Bibok MB, Carpendale JIM, Müller U. Pa- 12. Laranjo J, Bernier A, Meins E, Carlson SM. age: effects of sibship size and birth order.
rental scaffolding and the development of Early manifestations of children’s theory Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2006;18(1):138–158
executive function. New Dir Child Adolesc of mind: the roles of maternal mind- 22. Holmgren S, Molander B, Nilsson L. Epi-
Dev. 2009;2009(123):17–34 mindedness and infant security of attach- sodic memory in adult age and effects of
4. Bradley RH, Convyn RF, Burchinal M, McAdoo ment. Infancy. 2010;15(3):300–323 sibship size and birth order: longitudinal
HP, Coll CG. The home environments of chil- 13. Bernier A, Carlson SM, Whipple N. From data. J Adult Dev. 2007;14(1):37–46
dren in the United States part II: relations external regulation to self-regulation: early 23. Baydar N, Brooks-Gunn J, Furstenberg FF.
with behavioral development through age parenting precursors of young children’s Early warning signs of functional illiteracy:
thirteen. Child Dev. 2001;72(6):1868–1886 executive functioning. Child Dev. 2010;81(1): predictors in childhood and adolescence.
5. Rogoff B, Mistry J, Göncü A, Mosier C, 326–339 Child Dev. 1993;64(3):815–829
Chavajay P, Heath SB. Guided participation 14. Prime H, Perlman M, Tackett J, Jenkins JM. 24. Hoff E. How social contexts support and
in cultural activity by toddlers and care- Cognitive sensitivity in sibling interactions: shape language development. Dev Rev.
givers. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1993;58 development of the construct and com- 2006;26(1):55–88
(8):v–vi, 1–174, discussion 175–179 parison of two coding methodologies. Early 25. Pine JM. Variation in vocabulary development
6. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society. Cambridge, Educ Dev. In Press as a function of birth order. Child Dev. 1995;66
MA: Harvard University Press; 1978 15. Downey DB. When bigger is not better: (1):272–281
7. Fernyhough C. Getting Vygotskian about family size, parental resources, and child- 26. Jæger MM. Do large sibships really lead to
theory of mind: mediation, dialogue, and ren’s educational performance. Am Sociol lower educational attainment?: new evi-
the development of social understanding. Rev. 1995;60(5):746–761 dence from quasi-experimental variation in
Dev Rev. 2008;28(2):225–262 16. Downey DB. Number of siblings and in- couples’ reproductive capacity. Acta Socio-
8. Meins E, Fernyhough C, Wainwright R, et al. tellectual development. The resource dilution logica. 2008;51(3):217–235
Pathways to understanding mind: con- explanation. Am Psychol. 2001;56(6-7):497–504 27. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator
struct validity and predictive validity of 17. Lawson D, Mace R. Trade-offs in modern variable distinction in social psychological
maternal mind-mindedness. Child Dev. parenting: a longitudinal study of sibling research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
2003;74(4):1194–1211 competition for parental care. Evol Hum considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51
9. Meins E, Fernyhough C, Fradley E, Tuckey M. Behav. 2009;30(3):170–183 (6):1173–1182
Rethinking maternal sensitivity: mothers’ 18. Oshima-Takane Y, Goodz E, Derevensky JL. 28. Jenkins JM. Psychosocial adversity and
comments on infants’ mental processes Birth order effects on early language de- resilience. In: Rutter M, Bishop DVM, Pine
predict security of attachment at 12 velopment: do secondborn children learn DS, et al, eds. Rutter’s Child and Adolescent
months. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42 from overheard speech? Child Dev. 1996;67 Psychiatry. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
(5):637–648 (2):621–634 Publishing Ltd; 2008:377

e400 PRIME et al
Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
 ARTICLE

29. Rutter M. Psychosocial resilience and pro- 42. Berglund E, Eriksson M, Westerlund M. 54. Holmbeck GN. Post-hoc probing of signifi-
tective mechanisms. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Communicative skills in relation to gender, cant moderational and mediational effects
1987;57(3):316–331 birth order, childcare and socioeconomic in studies of pediatric populations. J
30. Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. Resilience status in 18-month-old children. Scand J Pediatr Psychol. 2002;27(1):87–96
and development: contributions from the Psychol. 2005;46(6):485–491 55. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression:
study of children who overcome adversity. 43. Zambrana IM, Ystrom E, Pons F. Impact of Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New-
Dev Psychopathol. 1990;2(4):425–444 gender, maternal education, and birth or- bury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991
31. Howe N, Ross H, Recchia H. Sibling Rela- der on the development of language com- 56. Shavit Y, Pierce JL. Sibship size and
tions in Early and Middle Childhood. The prehension: a longitudinal study from 18 to educational attainment in nuclear and
Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social 36 months of age. J Dev Behav Pediatr. extended families: Arabs and Jews in
Development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing 2012;33(2):146–155 Israel. Am Sociol Rev. 1991;56(3):321–
Ltd; 2011:356 44. Lugo-Neris MJ, Jackson CW, Goldstein H. 330
32. Dunn J. Sibling Relationships. Oxford, UK: Facilitating vocabulary acquisition of young 57. Howe N, Petrakos H, Rinaldi CM. “All the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2002 English language learners. Lang Speech Hear sheeps are dead. He murdered them”:
33. Hoff-Ginsberg E. The relation of birth order Serv Sch. 2010;41(3):314–327 sibling pretense, negotiation, internal state
and socioeconomic status to children’s 45. Barnett WS, Yarosz DJ, Thomas J, Jung K, language, and relationship quality. Child
language experience and language de- Blanco D. Two-way and monolingual English Dev. 1998;69(1):182–191
velopment. Appl Psycholinguist. 1998;19(4): immersion in preschool education: an ex- 58. Howe N, Rinaldi CM, Jennings M, Petrakos
603–629 perimental comparison. Early Child Res Q. H. “No! The lambs can stay out because
34. Downey DB, Condron DJ. Playing well with 2007;22(3):277–293 they got cozies”: constructive and de-
others in kindergarten: the benefit of sib- 46. Hresko WP, Reid DK, Hammill DD. Examiner’s structive sibling conflict, pretend play, and
lings at home. J Marriage Fam. 2004;66(2): Manual for the Test of Early Language De- social understanding. Child Dev. 2002;73(5):
333–350 velopment - Third Edition (TELD-3). Austin, 1460–1473
35. Perner J, Ruffman T, Leekam SR. Theory of TX: PRO-ED; 1999 59. Slomkowski CL, Dunn J. Arguments and
mind is contagious: you catch it from your 47. Meunier JC, Wade M, Jennifer MJ. Mothers’ relationships within the family: differences
sibs. Child Dev. 1994;65(4):1228–1238 differential parenting and children’s behav- in young children’s disputes with mother
36. Peterson C. Kindred spirits - influences of ioural outcomes: exploring the moderating and sibling. Dev Psychol. 1992;28(5):919–
siblings’ perspectives on theory of mind. role of family and social context. Infant 924
Cogn Dev. 2000;15(4):435–455 Child Dev. 2012;21(1):107 60. Foote RC, Holmes-Lonergan HA. Sibling
37. Jenkins JM, Astington JW. Cognitive factors 48. Aguilar B, O’Brien KM, August GJ, Aoun SL, conflict and theory of mind. Br J Dev Psy-
and family structure associated with the- Hektner JM. Relationship quality of ag- chol. 2003;21(1):45–58
ory of mind development in young children. gressive children and their siblings: a mul- 61. Howe N, Rinaldi CM. You be the big sister:
Dev Psychol. 1996;32(1):70–78 tiinformant, multimeasure investigation. J maternal-preschooler internal state dis-
38. Howe N, Brody MH, Recchia H. Effects of task Abnorm Child Psychol. 2001;29(6):479–489 course, perspective-taking, and sibling
difficulty on sibling teaching in middle child- 49. Ambady N. The perils of pondering: in- caretaking. Infant Child Dev. 2004;13(3):
hood. Infant Child Dev. 2006;15(5):455–470 tuition and thin slice judgments. Psychol 217–234
39. Howe N, Recchia H. Individual differences in Inq. 2010;21(4):271–278 62. Rutter M. Special issue: Annual Research
sibling teaching in early and middle child- 50. Dunn LM, Dunn DM. Examiner’s Manual for Review: Resilience in child development.
hood. Early Educ Dev. 2009;20(1):174–197 the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3rd J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013:54(4):474–
40. Volling B. Sibling relationships. In: Bornstein ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance 487
MH, Davidson L, Keyes CLM, Moore KA, eds. Service; 1997 63. Azmitia M, Hesser K. Why siblings are im-
Well-Being: Positive Development Across 51. Rubin DB. Discussion on multiple imputa- portant agents of cognitive-development:
the Life Course. New York, US: Taylor & tion. Int Statistic Rev. 2003;71(3):619–625 a comparison of siblings and peers. Child
Francis Group; 2012;205 52. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Non- Dev. 1993;64(2):430–444
41. Fenson L, Dale PS, Reznick JS, Bates E, Thal response in Surveys. New York, NY: J Wiley 64. Milvesky A. Sibling Relationships in Child-
DJ, Pethick SJ. Variability in early commu- & Sons; 1987 hood and Adolescence: Predictors and
nicative development. Monogr Soc Res Child 53. Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivar- Outcomes. New York, NY: Columbia Univer-
Dev. 1994;59(5):1–173, discussion 174–185 iate Data. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1997 sity Press; 2011

PEDIATRICS Volume 133, Number 2, February 2014 e401

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016
Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary
Heather Prime, Sharon Pauker, André Plamondon, Michal Perlman and Jennifer
Jenkins
Pediatrics 2014;133;e394; originally published online January 27, 2014;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2874
Updated Information & including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Services /content/133/2/e394.full.html
References This article cites 50 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free
at:
/content/133/2/e394.full.html#ref-list-1
Citations This article has been cited by 5 HighWire-hosted articles:
/content/133/2/e394.full.html#related-urls
Subspecialty Collections This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in
the following collection(s):
Developmental/Behavioral Pediatrics
/cgi/collection/development:behavioral_issues_sub
Growth/Development Milestones
/cgi/collection/growth:development_milestones_sub
Psychiatry/Psychology
/cgi/collection/psychiatry_psychology_sub
Permissions & Licensing Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
tables) or in its entirety can be found online at:
/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml
Reprints Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly

publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published,
and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk
Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All
rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016

Sibship Size, Sibling Cognitive Sensitivity, and Children's Receptive Vocabulary
Heather Prime, Sharon Pauker, André Plamondon, Michal Perlman and Jennifer
Jenkins
Pediatrics 2014;133;e394; originally published online January 27, 2014;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2874

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
located on the World Wide Web at:
/content/133/2/e394.full.html

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly

publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned,
published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point
Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy
of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from by guest on February 14, 2016