Jealousy behaviors in early childhood: Associations with attachment and temperament

Abstract

The current study examined the associations that children’s attachment and temperament share with individual differences in jealousy behaviors in early childhood. Previous research has found that secure children display fewer jealousy behaviors than their insecure counterparts, while other research has demonstrated that children with greater activity level and distress to limitations exhibit more jealousy behaviors and affect. In the present study of 83 mother–child dyads (M _age = 56.92 months), mothers reported their child’s attachment security and temperament, and children’s behaviors following jealousy-evoking events were observed. The results revealed that as security increased, children were less likely to exhibit externalizing jealousy behaviors, but temperament did not predict jealousy behaviors. These findings support the notion that attachment security is more related than temperament to this aspect of socioemotional development.

Keywords

Jealousy attachment temperament externalizing

Jealousy is a complex emotional experience that occurs when individuals perceive a loss of love or attention from a valued individual to a rival (Bauminger, Chomsky-Smolkin, Orbach-Caspi, Zachor, & Levy-Shiff, 2008). Recent research has underscored the importance of this emotion in children’s everyday lives and has discovered that children display a wide range of emotional and behavioral responses to situations involving losing their caregiver’s attention to a sibling or peer (Bauminger-Zvieli & Kugelmass, 2013; Hart & Legerstee, 2010; Volling, Gonzalez, Kennedy, Rosenberg, & Oh, 2014). Investigators have also explored the factors that are related to individual differences such as emotion understanding, parental marital relationship quality, temperament, and attachment (e.g., Hart & Behrens, 2013a; Volling, McElwain, & Miller, 2002). The current study further examined attachment and temperament as predictors of children’s jealousy behaviors in the underexplored age-group of the preschool period.

Jealousy in Early Childhood

The perception of losing a loved one’s attention to another individual can produce a combination of affective and behavioral responses, often referred to as jealousy protests (Hart & Behrens, 2013b). This typically includes a negative emotional response involving sadness, fear, and anger, as well as approach-type behaviors to gain proximity to the valued individual (Hart & Behrens, 2013b). Developmental psychologists have examined factors that are related to differences in children’s demonstrations of jealousy. Positive parental marital relationships, maternal sensitivity and receptiveness, early birth order, and lower sibling rivalry, have all been found to be associated with fewer jealousy behaviors (Hart & Behrens, 2013b; Volling et al., 2002). The current study attempted to add to this growing literature by examining the associations that attachment and temperament share with children’s jealousy responses.

Attachment and Its Association with Children’s Jealousy Responses

Attachments, or the emotional bonds between a child and a caregiver, are formed early in life to ensure the child’s needs are met (Bowlby, 1969). The quality of attachments varies based on how the caregiver responds to the child’s needs, with secure children consistently experiencing sensitive caregiving, especially when in distress (Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2008). Alternatively, insecure children tend to experience inconsistent caregiving or have caregivers who dismiss or reject their needs (ambivalent and avoidant, respectively; Weinfield et al., 2008). Children’s histories of their caregivers’ responsiveness are internalized and can affect how children perceive themselves and others and how they interact within the social world throughout their lives (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008). Secure children, who view themselves as loveable and worthy, trust others, and value relationships, tend to be more socially and emotionally competent (Fivush, 2006). For example, they are more cooperative with parents, have better peer relationships and friendships, demonstrate greater emotion regulation, and have a lower risk for clinical symptoms (Brumariu & Kerns, 2014; Sroufe, 2005; Thompson, 2008).

When losing their caregivers’ attention, secure children should remain confident that their caregivers will still be available and responsive to their needs, and so it is possible that they experience less jealousy. In fact, previous research has found that 1-year-olds who are secure, as measured by the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), are less likely to cry, protest, or act aggressively during jealousy eliciting episodes involving a sibling (Teti & Ablard, 1989). Bauminger-Zvieli and Kugelmass (2013) discovered that preschool-aged children (M _age = 57.76) who are secure, as assessed through the Attachment Q-Set (AQS; Waters & Deane, 1985), are less likely to exhibit jealous verbalizations when losing their mother’s attention to a peer. Other research using the AQS has found that secure 2 to 6-year-olds display less dysregulated behavior when losing attention to a younger sibling (Volling et al., 2002). Insecure children, on the other hand, may feel threatened by a rival receiving their caregiver’s attention and experience greater jealousy. In response to their mother attending to a realistic-looking baby doll, Hart and Behrens (2013a) demonstrated that ambivalent infants, as assessed by the SSP around the children’s first birthday, displayed significantly more jealousy behaviors (i.e., mother-directed gaze and touch, proximity seeking) than other infants.

Temperament and Its Association with Children’s Jealousy Responses

Children’s temperament, or the individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001), is also important to consider. Rothbart’s (1981) conceptualization of temperament includes several dimensions that combine to create three factors of temperament: negative affectivity, effortful control, and surgency/extraversion. Children high in negative affectivity are likely to experience more discomfort, sadness, anger/frustration, and fear, and be more difficult to soothe (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Higher effortful control indicates that the child is able to maintain focus, restrain from inappropriate responses, and enjoy low intensity stimuli (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Finally, children high in surgency/extraversion are more likely to be impulsive, have higher activity levels, and enjoy novel or high intensity stimuli (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006).

Different predispositions to experiencing negative affect, as well as the ability to control such emotion, might be associated with jealousy responses. Because jealousy produces negative emotions (i.e., sadness, anger, and fear; Hart & Behrens, 2013b), individuals who are temperamentally predisposed to experience greater emotionality may also experience more intense jealousy (Bringle, 1991). Additionally, jealousy can motivate approach behaviors as individuals attempt to get physically and emotionally closer to the valued individual to maintain their attention (Hart & Behrens, 2013a), and these behaviors can be influenced by temperament (Mize & Jones, 2012). Limited previous research has shed light on how temperament might affect children’s jealousy. Mize and Jones (2012) found that activity level (a dimension of surgency) and distress to limitations (similar to the anger/frustration dimension of negative affectivity) were positively related to observations of 1-year-olds’ jealousy behaviors and affect. Other researchers have found that 1-year-olds’ temperamental anger significantly predicted jealous affect when the mother attended to the older sibling (Volling et al., 2002). Alternatively, Hart and Behrens (2013a) found that negative emotionality was not related to infants’ emotional or behavioral jealousy responses, but positive emotionality was inversely related to distress during a jealousy simulation.

The Current Study

The current study explored the associations that attachment and temperament share with children’s jealousy behaviors. Much of the previous research examined infants and toddlers, and so the present study focused on the preschool period. Children in this age-group experience dramatic advances in their social and emotional development. Throughout the preschool period, children develop new ways of interacting and communicating with their caregivers (Lamb & Lewis, 2005). At the same time, their internal representations of their relationships with caregivers become more sophisticated (Marvin & Britner, 2008). Additionally, children are also more aware of the emotional experiences of themselves and others and experience major advances in emotional and self-regulation (Denham et al., 2014; Rothbart, Posner, & Kieras, 2006).

Harris and Hart (2015) noted that jealousy in infancy is often displayed through jealousy protests, which can involve inhibition or externalizing/under-regulated behaviors that occur because of differential treatment by the caregiver. The current study employed an operationalization of jealousy protest similar to Harris and Hart (2015) that focused on both externalizing and inhibition. Given the previous findings that secure children display less jealousy, it was predicted that more secure children would demonstrate fewer externalizing and inhibition jealousy behaviors than less secure children would. Much of the temperament research has found that anger/frustration relates to jealousy (Mize & Jones, 2012; Volling et al., 2002), but the current study examined negative affectivity more generally, as well as surgency/extraversion and effortful control. It was predicted that higher negative affectivity and surgency/extraversion, but lower effortful control would be related to higher levels of inhibition and externalizing. Analyses also tested if attachment or temperament made a larger contribution to children’s inhibition and externalizing jealousy behaviors.

Finally, the current study examined differences in inhibition and externalizing among different contexts: (1) the mother attending to a pretend baby held by the researcher, (2) the mother holding the pretend baby, and (3) the mother telling the pretend baby her child’s favorite nursery rhyme. It was predicted that the children’s inhibition and externalizing jealousy behaviors would increase throughout the three contexts, as the level of the mother’s involvement with the rival increased.

Method

Participants

Eighty-three children (37 females, 46 males) from the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. participated with their mothers in a lab session for a larger study (lasting about 1.75 hours) when they were between 54- and 63-months-old (M _age = 56.92 months, SD = 2.74). Two dyads were excluded from the current analyses because the participating women were not the children’s caregivers (deemed an important requirement for the accurate reporting of the children’s attachment and temperament). One dyad did not participate in the jealousy task. Thus, 80 dyads (37 females, 43 males; M _age = 56.85 months, SD = 2.71) were included for attachment and jealousy analyses. Out of those 80 remaining dyads, 11 mothers did not return surveys that asked about demographics and temperament and so only 69 dyads (33 females, 36 males; M _age = 56.75 months, SD = 2.71) had complete data on attachment, jealousy, and temperament to be included in all analyses. Of these 69 dyads, 61 (88.41%) of the children were Caucasian (4 African American, 1 Hispanic, 3 Other); 95.65% of the children were in daycare, preschool, or kindergarten, and 79.71% of the children had siblings. The average maternal age was 35.99 (SD = 5.75). Fifty (72.46%) mothers had a college or post-college degree (5 had a high school diploma and 14 had some college) and 35 (50.72%) of the children’s fathers had a college or post-college degree (2 had less than a high school diploma, 15 had a high school diploma, and 17 had some college).

Procedure

Participants were recruited by distributing flyers to local daycares, schools, and businesses and interested mothers contacted the researchers to schedule a lab visit. The larger study included tasks outside of the current purpose that assessed parenting, children’s social and emotional development, and dyadic interactions. Mothers were fully briefed on all tasks and informed consent was obtained. The observation room was staged to look like an informal living room and contained a couch, coffee table, two end tables, and a child-sized chair. There were also many toys around the room because the first task involved a 10-min warm-up free-play between the child and the mother. This was followed by several dyadic tasks assessing mother–child interactions (e.g., reminiscing task). The mother was then taken to an adjacent interview room where she performed the AQS (Waters & Deane, 1985) and was trained for the jealousy simulations. While the child was in the observation room without the mother, the child participated in several individual tasks for the larger study (e.g., emotional understanding, prosocial behavior, story comprehension, story completion, empathy, guilt) and was allowed to select a stuffed animal as a gift following the completion of this portion. When the child and mother both finished their individual tasks, the mother rejoined her child in the observation room and they participated in one more dyadic task before engaging in the three jealousy simulations. The lab was concluded following the jealousy simulations and the mother was given a packet of questionnaires, including The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Short Form (Rothbart et al., 2001), to complete at home and mail back, as well as a monetary gift for their participation.

Measures

Attachment

Mothers completed the AQS (Waters & Deane, 1985) under the guidance of a trained research assistant. The AQS contains 90 cards that describe children’s secure base behaviors. During the lab, mothers sorted the cards into nine piles with 10 cards in each depending on how much the descriptions were like or unlike their child. The mother’s sort was then correlated with an optimal security sort. Thus, the AQS yields a continuous measure of security from −1 (very insecure) to 1 (very secure). The AQS is widely used as a measure of children’s attachment in early childhood and has been demonstrated to be psychometrically sound (Teti & McGourty, 1996; Volling et al., 2014).

Some researchers argue that the AQS should be sorted by observers rather than mothers to lessen potential biases. However, researchers have demonstrated that if mothers are given the statements in advance, do not know the underlying construct, and are guided through the sorting by a trained researcher, mothers can provide valid sorts that are predictive of relevant constructs (Laible, Panfile & Makariev, 2008; Teti & McGourty, 1996; Volling et al., 2002). The current study employed these strategies. Teti and McGourty (1996) have also found that maternal sorts are moderately correlated with observer sorts and suggested that maternal sorts are suitable for low-risk single-sample studies, as is the case in the current study.

Temperament

Mothers completed The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Short Form, which contains 94 items designed to measure temperament in children of 3 to 7 years of age (CBQ; Rothbart et al., 2001). Mothers judged how characteristic each statement was on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely untrue, 7 = extremely true). The questionnaire yields three factors of temperament: effortful control, negative affectivity, and surgency/extraversion (Cronbach’s αs for the current sample ≥ .77) (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). Previous studies have established this questionnaire to have predictive validity (Santucci et al., 2008).

Jealousy

Children’s jealousy responses were observed during three simulations involving a baby doll (Ashton-Drake Galleries™) that the children were lead to believe was a real baby (similar to Hart & Behrens, 2013a). The doll was swaddled in a gender-neutral blanket and the gender pronouns of the baby were matched to the gender of the participating child. Although the swaddling allowed the doll’s hair and forehead to be visible, the majority of its face remained hidden.

Prior to beginning the lab session, the dyad was met in the hallway and taken to the control room to introduce them to the research assistants, however, the control room was also staged to lead the child to believe there was a real baby. The doll was laid in a stroller and tucked under a blanket to appear like it was sleeping. There was also a diaper bag, baby blanket, and toys on the floor. Many children commented on the “baby” in the room.

Mothers were thoroughly trained in advance by a research assistant when she was in the interview room (without her child present) about what the researcher would do and say during each of the three jealousy episodes. Mothers were given a list of sample statements they could say about or to the doll, and this handout was later placed on the table in front of the mother during the simulations in case she needed prompts. Mothers were asked to try their best to ignore their child throughout the episodes.

Following the training, the mother rejoined her child in the observation room to complete a dyadic task outside of the current study. Afterward, the research assistant told the mother that the researcher (first author) wanted to introduce her to the researcher’s baby before the lab concluded. The assistant exited and shortly after, the researcher entered holding the doll, and said to the mother, “Here’s my son/daughter I was telling you about earlier. I wanted to show you him/her before you had to leave.” While rocking the baby, the researcher had a conversation with the mother about the baby (e.g., “He’s/She’s just such a great baby!”) and asked the mother questions about her own child (e.g., “Was [name] a good sleeper when he/she was little?”) for 1 min (episode one) (Hart & Behrens, 2013a). Then, the researcher asked the mother if she would like to hold the baby, and she was previously instructed to respond “of course!” The researcher and mother had another conversation for 1 min while the mother held the doll (Hart & Behrens, 2013a) (episode two). The mother also talked to the baby in an affectionate tone and made comments about the baby (sample statements available on handout: “Awww! Look how cute he/she is!” “I just love babies so much!” “What a good baby!”). The procedures for both of these episodes have been used successfully in a younger sample of 1-year-olds to elicit jealousy distress that was predicted in subsequent analyses by maternal sensitivity (Hart & Behrens, 2013a).

Finally, the researcher explained that the baby loves nursery rhymes and asked the mother to tell the baby a nursery rhyme. The mother was previously instructed to tell her child’s favorite nursery rhyme to the doll she was still holding (episode three) (adapted from Bauminger & Kugelmass, 2013). Mothers were asked to tell the rhyme twice to allow enough time to observe behaviors (average length = 47.96 s, range: 21–74 s). If the child did not have a favorite nursery rhyme, mothers were instructed to tell Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and the words to this rhyme were available on their handout. Three dyads did not complete the third episode because the child became too upset. At the conclusion of the third episode, the researcher took the doll back and explained that she was going to lay the baby down to sleep next door and return to conclude the lab. Bauminger and Kugelmass (2013) used a similar procedure with preschoolers where they had mothers hold their child’s peer and read a storybook to the peer. They found this task elicited more jealousy behaviors than a control condition where the mother read a storybook to herself.

Jealousy coding for each episode was adapted from the Jealousy Protest Checklist (Hart, unpublished), which codes for the presence or absence of five types of externalizing behaviors and five types of inhibited behaviors (see Table 1). Externalizing behaviors included hostile aggression, acute agitation, destructive play, naughtiness, and pestering. Inhibited behaviors included avoidance, fear/flight, anxiety, conflict/ambivalence, and worry. Externalizing behaviors were weighted in order of severity, as seen in Table 1, and then summed (Harris, personal communication, 2015). Thus, if a child exhibited acute agitation and naughtiness in episode one, the child would receive an externalizing score of six for that episode. Similar weighting was employed for inhibited behaviors. All observations were independently coded by two researchers and disagreements were resolved through discussion. Good interrater reliability was obtained on a subsample of 20 independently coded observations (intraclass correlations: rs ≥ .80 for externalizing, rs ≥ .87 for inhibition).

Table 1.

Jealousy protest checklist (adapted).

Externalizing/Under-regulated		Weight
Hostile aggression	Seeks to inflict harm, attacks mother, experimenter, or self (slaps or punches mother, bangs head, touches electrical outlet)	5
Acute agitation	Active/agitated with negative affect, pulls or grabs mother or experimenter, throws tantrum, screams, bangs stuffed animal on mother, experimenter, furniture, or intentionally on self	4
Destructive play	Active/agitated, jumps on table or couch, throws stuffed animal, picture, or pillows, trashes mother’s handbag or belongings, runs around	3
Naughtiness	Lays on table, grabs picture, pokes baby, peeks under curtain, poor manners	2
Pestering	Distracting behavior, diverts maternal attention toward self (e.g., asks for assistance, shows stuffed animal or picture, makes loud noises, picks up mother’s handbag, whines)	1
Inhibited		Weight
Avoids mother fully	Does not approach mother at all, ignores mother, no interaction with mother	5
Fear/flight	Tries to exit, stands by door, hides under furniture, cowering, raised shoulders, facial expression of fear, getting ready to leave (getting coat or purse)	4
Anxiety	>2 s of repetitive movement (rocking, rubbing, pacing, blinking, sit/rise, banging toy), unblinking stare, freezing, handling a toy without play/exploration (i.e., without looking at it, showing no interest in it, or gaining no enjoyment from it)	3
Conflicted/ambivalence	Approaches mother and then withdraws or does not touch her	2
Worry	Looking worried (not playing) hanging back with minimal touch (e.g., stands close, looking serious)	1

Note. Printed with permission from Dr. Sybil Hart (personal communication, 2019). Some descriptions have been slightly adapted from the original version, mostly based on available objects in the room. For example, the children in the current study had a stuffed animal and picture and so uses of these objects were included where appropriate.

Results

Descriptive statistics can be found in Table 2. Independent samples t-tests revealed that females were significantly higher than males in attachment security (males: M = 0.40, SD = 0.16, females: M = 0.48, SD = 0.17; t(78) = −2.14, p = .035) and effortful control (males: M = 5.10, SD = 0.52, females: M = 5.44, SD = 0.56; t(67) = −2.61, p = .011), and lower in surgency/extraversion (males: M = 4.92, SD = 0.71, females: M = 4.54, SD = 0.71; t(67) = 2.21, p = .030). There were no gender differences in negative affectivity or jealousy behaviors.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

	M (SD)	n	Range
Attachment	0.44 (0.17)	81	0.02–0.71
Negative affectivity	3.95 (0.57)	69	2.66–5.41
Effortful control	5.26 (0.56)	69	3.79–6.64
Surgency/extraversion	4.74 (0.73)	69	2.47–6.21
Externalizing episode one	2.45 (2.99)	80	0.00–12.00
Inhibited episode one	3.61 (3.37)	80	0.00–15.00
Externalizing episode two	3.30 (2.98)	80	0.00–13.00
Inhibited episode two	4.05 (3.28)	80	0.00–13.00
Externalizing episode three	1.70 (2.51)	77	0.00–13.00
Inhibited episode three	5.53 (3.72)	77	0.00–13.00
Externalizing average	2.54 (2.25)	80	0.00–11.33
Inhibition average	4.41 (2.73)	80	0.00–13.00

Repeated measures ANOVAs tested differences in externalizing and inhibition across the three jealousy episodes. There was a significant difference in externalizing across the episodes (F(2,146) = 8.73, p < .001). Simple planned contrasts demonstrated that there was more externalizing in the second episode than either the first (F(1,76) = 5.66, p = .020) or third (F(1,76) = 21.34, p < .001). There was no difference between episodes one and three (F(1,76) = 2.59, p = .112). There was also a significant difference in inhibition (F(2,148) = 11.90, p < .001). Simple planned contrasts revealed that children demonstrated more inhibition in episode three than episodes one (F(1,76) = 18.60, p < .001) and two (F(1,76) = 17.45, p < .001), but there was no difference between episodes one and two (F(1,76) = 0.50, p = .482).

Externalizing behaviors in all episodes were positively intercorrelated (rs ranged from .23 to .48, ps < .05), and inhibition behaviors in all episodes were positively intercorrelated (rs ranged from .32 to .51, ps < .01). Because of this high level of interrelatedness, an overall externalizing score was created by averaging the scores from the three episodes and an overall inhibition score was created by averaging the three inhibition scores. These averaged scores were used for subsequent analyses.

Correlations displayed that as attachment security increased effortful control increased, but negative affectivity and surgency/extraversion decreased (see Table 3). Effortful control was also negatively correlated with surgency/extraversion. Correlations testing the associations that attachment and temperament share with jealousy behaviors revealed that security was negatively correlated with externalizing behaviors, but not inhibition behaviors. Temperament was not associated with jealousy behaviors.

Table 3.

Correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Attachment	—	−.32** n = 69	.49** n = 69	−.37** n = 69	−.41** n = 80	.09 n = 80
2. Negative affectivity		—	−.08 n = 69	−.12 n = 69	.01 n = 69	−.14 n = 69
3. Effortful control			—	−.28* n = 69	−.22 n = 69	.02 n = 69
4. Surgency/extraversion				—	.21 n = 69	.01 n = 69
5. Externalizing average					—	−.07 n = 80
6. Inhibition average						—

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Regression models were built with gender on the first step, while attachment, negative affectivity, effortful control, and surgency/extraversion entered simultaneously on the second step as predictors. The full model predicting externalizing was significant (F(5,68) = 3.36, p = .009; see Table 4). After controlling for gender, only attachment significantly contributed to the model (t = −3.28, p = .002). The full regression predicting inhibition was not significant (F(5,68) = 0.30, p = .910; see Table 4).¹

Table 4.

Regression models predicting children’s externalizing and inhibition during jealousy simulation.

	βs in full model			95% confidence interval for β
Variables and steps	βs in full model	R ²	ΔR ²	Lower	Upper
Externalizing
1. Gender	−.06	.02		−0.67	0.42
2. Attachment	−.47**			−1.75	−0.42
Negative affectivity	−.14			−0.88	0.24
Effortful control	.02			−0.55	0.66
Surgency/extraversion	.02	.21**	.19**	−0.54	0.62
Inhibition
1. Gender	.05	.00		−0.56	0.83
2. Attachment	.04			−0.73	0.96
Negative affectivity	−.13			−1.04	0.39
Effortful control	−.03			−0.85	0.70
Surgency/extraversion	.02	.02	.02	−0.70	0.79

Note. n = 69, gender is coded as −1 for males and 1 for females.

**p < .01.

Discussion

The main purpose of the study was to investigate if attachment and temperament are associated with children’s jealousy behaviors. The hypothesis that less secure children would display greater jealousy was only supported with regard to externalizing jealousy behaviors. These results echo the findings of Teti and Ablard (1989) who found that secure infants are less likely to cry, protest, and act aggressively than insecure infants when the mother paid attention to an older sibling. It appears that more secure children might feel more confident in the consistent affection and attention from their caregivers and may not be as threated by minimal intrusions. Although they might demonstrate jealousy when necessary to protect that valued relationship, they could have a higher threshold for experiencing jealousy (Harris & Darby, 2010). On the other hand, insecure children have previously been found to be more likely to externalize in general, exhibit conduct problems, and be aggressive than secure children (Sroufe, 2005), and the current study suggests that this might extend to jealousy situations.

Although insecure children, especially ambivalent children, have previously been found to be more likely to internalize and experience anxiety (Madigan, Brumariu, Villani, Atkinson, & Lyons-Ruth, 2016; Sroufe, 2005), the current results were unable to support such a link. However, a recent meta-analysis discovered that attachment is more related to externalizing (d = .31) than internalizing (d = .15) (Groh et al., 2017). The current results echo these findings.

The hypothesis that children higher in negative affectivity and surgency/extraversion and lower in effortful control would exhibit greater jealousy behaviors was not supported. There were no associations between temperament and jealousy. This opposes previous findings that children higher in activity, distress to limitations, and anger displayed greater jealousy (e.g., Mize & Jones, 2012; Volling et al., 2002). However, much of this research has been conducted with infants and toddlers. Older children, like those in the current study, are better able to regulate themselves and their emotions, which might have obscured such findings. Furthermore, when considering attachment with temperament after controlling for gender, only attachment uniquely accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in externalizing. Overall, it appears that a child’s quality of attachment is more predictive of their jealousy externalizing than are their inherited ways of reacting toward the world.

To address the differences in jealousy across contexts, it was hypothesized that the most jealousy behaviors would occur in episode three, when the mother told her child’s favorite nursery rhyme to the baby doll she was holding. This was true for inhibition. Many children who were talkative and/or acting out during the first two episodes quieted down to watch this event unfold during episode three, often with worried expressions. It appears that this episode brought out the most anxiety-based behaviors. On the other hand, the most externalizing behaviors occurred when the caregiver held the rival (episode two). The threat was greater when the mother held the doll than when the researcher held the doll, and as a result, many children engaged in pestering, naughtiness, or aggressive behaviors to try to regain their mother’s attention. Future research should continue to explore other types of scenarios that might elicit different jealousy behaviors, and to see if the types of scenarios that elicit jealousy change across age.

The current study uncovered other interesting aspects of children’s jealousy responses. All children displayed jealousy responses, yet the averages for externalizing and inhibition were low. This suggests that minimal jealousy is the more typical response. It is notable that all but one child demonstrated some type of jealousy, either externalizing or inhibition, during the first episode (the remaining child demonstrated jealousy in the second episode), suggesting that the jealousy system is normative and quick to react to the loss of the caregiver’s attention. Such a prompt response would be considered adaptive in order to immediately remove the interference of the rival and regain the caregiver’s exclusivity. Moreover, jealousy studies have shown that children become jealous when attention is paid to a sibling (Teti & Ablard, 1989; Volling et al., 2002) or a similar-aged peer (Bauminger-Zvieli & Kugelmass, 2013; Hart and Behrens, 2013a), but even a pretend baby, who is assumed to be several years younger than the participating child, was interpreted as a rival.

Although not a main topic of exploration, there were some gender differences. Girls were reported by their mothers to be more secure, higher in effortful control, and lower in surgency/extraversion than boys. It is unclear why girls were reported to be more secure, as many other studies using parental reports of attachment have not shown gender differences (e.g., Stievenart, Roskam, Meunier, & Van de Moortele, 2012). This finding may be an unusual characteristic of this specific sample. The remaining gender differences mimic a meta-analysis that found girls tend to be rated higher in effortful control and lower in surgency/extraversion, possibly due to their greater ability to focus and control impulses (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006).

This study is not without limitations. The sample was mostly Caucasian and so results cannot be generalized to more-diverse samples. Additionally, mothers’ reports of attachment and temperament could be biased, and so future studies should attempt to include observer ratings as well. By using the AQS (Waters & Deane, 1985), the present study could not discern children’s attachment classifications. Previous research has found ambivalent children to be more likely to internalize and experience anxiety, and avoidant children to demonstrate more externalizing and aggression (Sroufe, 2005). Similarly, it might be possible that ambivalent children are more likely to display inhibiting jealousy behaviors while avoidant children are more likely to display externalizing behaviors. Additionally, using a weighted coding scheme for children’s jealousy may have artificially inflated some scores. Finally, without having a definitive physiological measure of arousal, we cannot be certain that children are having a jealous emotional response to the simulation. Volling, Kennedy, and Jackey (2010) note that because jealousy can be hard to measure, researchers frequently rely on the context to interpret the experience of jealousy. Thus, we are assuming that this context of losing their mother’s attention to a ‘baby’ is leading to children’s experience of jealousy.

Future research can extend the current findings, first by assessing if the association between attachment and jealousy is consistent across age using longitudinal methodology. Additionally, other methods to tap into children’s internalization presentations of jealousy, including physiological or verbal responses, should be employed. Finally, an in-depth analysis of the children who become too distressed during a jealousy-evoking event could give further insight into this type of manifestation of jealousy protest.

The current study adds to our knowledge about young children’s responses to jealousy-evoking events and, related to previous studies with infants, how children’s attachment is associated with jealousy. Attachment theory suggests that experiencing jealousy is a normative response to protect the relationship (Hart & Legerstee, 2010). Our findings concur, demonstrating that even secure children demonstrate some jealousy responses. With this in mind, caregivers can be reassured that some jealousy is likely to occur if they need to devote their attention to another individual. However, the results also indicate the importance of establishing secure bonds to ensure that the levels of jealousy remain at a lower, constructive level. Caregivers mindful of this can attempt to respond consistently and sensitively to their children in order to promote a secure attachment.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tia Panfile Murphy

Note

References

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

Blehar

M. C.

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bauminger

Chomsky-Smolkin

Orbach-Caspi

Zachor

Levy-Shiff

(2008). Jealousy and emotional responsiveness in young children with ASD. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 595–619. doi:10.1080/02699930701439986

Bauminger-Zvieli

Kugelmass

D. S

. (2013). Mother-stranger comparisons of social attention in jealousy context and attachment in HFASD and typical preschoolers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 253–264. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9664-1

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bretherton

Munholland

K. A.

(2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Bringle

R. G.

(1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy & envy (pp. 103–131). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Brumariu

L. E.

Kerns

K. A.

(2014). Parent-child attachment in early and middle childhood. In Smith

P. K.

Hart

C. H.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (2nd ed., pp. 319–336). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Denham

Warren

von Salish

Benga

Chin

Geangu

(2014). Emotions and social development in childhood. In Smith

P. K.

Hart

C. H.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 413–433). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Goldsmith

H. H.

Van Hulle

C. A.

(2006). Gender difference in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33

10.

Fivush

(2006). Scripting attachment: Generalized event representations and internal working models. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 283–289. doi:10.1080/08912960600858935

11.

Groh

A. M.

Narayan

A. J.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Roisman

G. I.

Vaughn

B. E.

Pasco Fearon

R. M.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(2017). Attachment and temperament in the early life course: A meta-analytic review. Child Development, 88, 770–795. doi:10.1111/cdev.12677

12.

Harris

C. R.

Darby

R. S.

(2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In Hart

S. L.

Legerstee

(Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 547–571). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

13.

Harris

J. K.

Hart

S. L.

(March, 2015). Validation of a paradigm to elicit jealousy in “expectant” toddlers. Poster presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

14.

Hart

S. L.

Behrens

K. Y.

(2013b). Regulation of jealousy protest in context of reunion following differential treatment. Infancy, 18, 1076–1110. doi:10.1111/infa.12024

15.

Hart

S. L.

Behrens

K.Y.

(2013a). Affective and behavioral features of jealousy protest: Associations with child temperament, maternal interaction style, and attachment. Infancy, 18, 369–399. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00123.x

16.

Hart

S. L.

Legerstee

(Eds.) (2010). Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

17.

Laible

Panfile

Makariev

(2008). The quality and frequency of mother-toddler conflict: Links with attachment and temperament. Child Development, 79, 426–443. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01134.x

18.

Lamb

M. E.

Lewis

(2005). The role of parent-child relationships in child development. In Bornstein

M. H.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.) Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 429–468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Madigan

Brumariu

Villani

Atkinson

Lyons-Ruth

(2016). Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 367–399. doi:10.1037/bul0000029

20.

Marvin

R. S.

Britner

P. A.

(2008). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 269–294). New York, NY: Guilford.

21.

Mize

K. D.

Jones

N. A.

(2012). Infant physiological and behavioral responses to loss of maternal attention to a social-rival. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 16–23. doi:10.1016/j.ipsycho.2011.09.018

22.

Putnam

S. P.

Rothbart

M. K

. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 103–133. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09

23.

Rothbart

M. K.

(1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child Development, 52, 569–578. doi:10.2307/1129176

24.

Rothbart

M. K.

Ahadi

S. A.

Hershey

K. L.

Fisher

(2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The children’s behavior questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00355

25.

Rothbart

M. K.

Posner

M. I.

Kieras

(2006). Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation. In McCartney

Phillips

(Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of early childhood (pp. 338–357). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

26.

Santucci

A. K.

Silk

J. S.

Shaw

D. S.

Gentzler

Fox

N. A.

Kovacs

(2008). Vagal tone and temperament as predictors of emotion regulation strategies in young children. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 205–216. doi:10.1002/dev.20283

27.

Sroufe

L. A.

(2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment and Human Development, 7, 349–367. doi:10.1080/14616730500365928

28.

Stievenart

Roskam

Meunier

J. C.

Van de Moortele

(2012). Assessment of preschoolers’ attachment security using the Attachment Q-Set and the Attachment Story Completion Task. International Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment, 12, 62–80.

29.

Teti

D. M.

Ablard

K. E.

(1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child Development, 60, 1519–1528. doi:10.2307/1130940

30.

Teti

D. M.

McGourty

(1996). Using mothers versus trained observers in assessing children’s secure base behavior: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Child Development, 67, 597–605. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01753.x

31.

Thompson

R. A.

(2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 348–365). New York: The Guildford Press.

32.

Volling

B. L.

Kennedy

D. E.

Jackey

L. M. H.

(2010). The development of sibling jealousy. In Hart

S. L.

Legerstee

(Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 387–417). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

33.

Volling

B. L.

McElwain

N. L.

Miller

A. L.

(2002). Emotion regulation in context: The jealousy complex between young siblings and its relations with child and family characteristics. Child Development, 73, 581–600. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00425

34.

Volling

B. L.

Gonzalez

Kennedy

D. E.

Rosenberg

(2014). Children’s responses to mother-infant and father-infant interaction with a baby sibling: Jealousy or joy? Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 634–644. doi:10.1037/a0037811

35.

Waters

Deane

(1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In Bretherton

Waters

(Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (serial no. 209), 41–65.

36.

Weinfield

N. S.

Sroufe

L. A.

Egeland

Carlson

(2008). Individual differences in infant-caregiver attachment: Conceptual and empirical aspects of security. In Lisa

S. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 78–101). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.