Parenting as Beta Testing: Perceived Changes in Parenting from Firstborns to Secondborns

Abstract

Research suggests that parents often change parenting strategies between children, but few studies have examined parents’ perceptions of those changes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to create a measure of parental perception of experience-based change between firstborn and secondborn. Participants included 401 parents (62.9% female, 76.6% White, M_age = 39.91) with at least two adolescent children (older M_age = 14.5; younger M_age = 11.84) split evenly between mixed (49%) and same gender (51%) sibling pairs. The measure items assessed parents’ perception of parenting changes between their children for monitoring, expectations, nurturing, and discipline. Analyses further support the reliability and validity of the measure; for example, parents who reported lower expectations between children reported lower parenting self-efficacy, and parents who perceived becoming less nurturing between children reported a less positive relationship with the secondborn. Discussion focuses on implications and directions for future research using the measure.

Keywords

siblings parenting monitoring nurturing adolescence

Sibling scholars have noted that siblings influence one another’s development in a myriad of ways (e.g., Bank et al., 2004; Dunn, 1998; Updegraff et al., 2000). Siblings can learn directly from one another through interaction patterns and indirectly through the greater family system. One commonly acknowledged indirect pathway is by changing parental expectations and behaviors due to gained parenting experience; yet to date, little empirical evidence or support exists for this notion. The purpose of this study is to create a measure of parents’ perceptions of how they change their parenting of subsequent children based on their experiences with firstborn siblings.

Sibling Influence

Sibling researchers have identified two primary paths for sibling influence: direct and indirect. Siblings can influence one another directly through daily interaction patterns that facilitate social learning (Bank, et al., 2004; Brody, 1998; Stormshak et al., 1996). For example, younger siblings often model the behavior of more experienced older siblings (McGue et al., 1996; Patterson, 1986). Indirect sibling influence is the result of sibling’s interactions with the greater family system. Family systems theory provides a framework for understanding the mechanisms of indirect sibling influence by recognizing that each family relationship is influenced by the other, and that interactions with one member of the family will inevitably influence interaction with other members (Minuchin, 1985). For example, during the transition to adolescence, conflict between parents and adolescents tends to increase (Laursen et al., 1998). This increased conflict in the parent–adolescent dyad has been linked with parents’ increased conflict with secondborn children who are not experiencing a transition to adolescence (Shanahan et al., 2007b). The increased parental conflict with both offspring at the same time may be a product of the strain on the system that is produced by the transition of the adolescent. In this way, the sibling who is going through the transition is indirectly influencing the experience of his or her younger siblings.

Parental Experience-Based Change

Indirect sibling influence may also occur when parents change their expectations and parenting practices for a later-born offspring as a result of experiences with earlier-born offspring. Some empirical support does exist for this idea. For example, Whiteman et al. (2003) compared parents’ experiences with first and secondborn offspring at the same age and found that parents exhibited greater knowledge regarding secondborns’ everyday activities and had less conflict with secondborn siblings. Other studies suggest that parents alter their expectations based on experiences with firstborn offspring. For example, East (1998) suggested that having a daughter who became pregnant during adolescence lowers positive expectations for subsequent daughters. Whiteman and Buchanan (2002) found that the quality of mothers’ experience with an adolescent child influences her beliefs about the period of adolescence and can alter her expectations for subsequent adolescent children. More negative experiences with the older sibling were associated with more negative expectations for the younger sibling.

Previous work suggests that parenting changes occur from one child to the next in the domains of monitoring (Whiteman et al., 2003), expectations (East, 1998; Whiteman & Buchanan, 2002), warmth, and conflict/discipline (Shanahan et al., 2007a, 2007b). From this research, two patterns emerge in the changes that occur in parental expectations and parenting practices. The first pattern is that parents learn from experience, which improves expectations, relationship quality, and practices with subsequent offspring (Shanahan et al., 2007a; Whiteman et al., 2003). The second pattern highlights more negative changes such as lowering expectations and efficacy (i.e., feeling that parenting has little impact on their child’s future; East, 1998). In other words, “Are parents learning from experience from their older offspring and applying what they learn to later offspring, or are they ‘giving up’ on certain parenting strategies as a result of experiences with older offspring?” While previous work refers to the concept of parents changing based on experience as “learning from experience,” in this study it will be referred to as parental experience-based change (PEBC) in order to recognize that both positive and negative changes may occur.

Despite previous studies, the process of PEBC remains widely unknown. While previous work shows that parents treat offspring differently for a variety of reasons (Brody et al., 1992; Jensen et al., 2013; McHale et al., 2000), to date, researchers have not measured parents’ perceptions of changing behavior but have only inferred that parents are changing based on experience because two children in the family are treated differently. In the literature, parental perceptions have been measured as parental efficacy and have been linked to effective parenting, parent–child relationship quality, and child well-being (Albanese et al., 2019; Jones & Prinz, 2005). Therefore, a greater understanding of parents’ perceptions of the changes they make between children is a crucial step in moving our understanding of family systems forward and linking family processes to relevant outcomes and indices of adjustment.

This study set out to create a new measure of parents’ perceptions of the changes they make as a result of experiences with firstborn children in the domains of parental monitoring, expectations, nurturing and discipline, and whether those perceived changes are positive or negative.

Psychometric Development

American Psychological Association’s (APA) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1985) states that in addition to establishing reliability, test developers must provide evidence for content, criterion, and construct validity. Thus, in establishing a measure of PEBC we first established the internal consistency and split-half (where applicable) reliability (Cortina, 1993) of the measure. Then we established content validity (Anastasi, 1988; Haynes et al., 1995) by submitting the PEBC items to four expert reviewers in the field of parenting and sibling dynamics. Feedback of the reviewers was used to adjust the items. Criterion validity (Anastasi, 1988) was established by linking PEBC with parenting style, parent–child relationship, and parenting efficacy. Consistent with previous literature, we would expect that increases in parental monitoring (Whiteman et al., 2003), lowering of expectations (Whiteman & Buchanan, 2002), and parental efficacy (Jones & Prinz, 2005) would be associated with higher parent–child relationship quality. Furthermore, we posit that increased expectations would be associated with higher parental efficacy (Jones & Prinz, 2005), while increased discipline would be associated with lower parental efficacy (East, 1998). Lastly, construct validity was established via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an oblique rotation (Clark & Watson, 1995; Cronbach, 1970).

Method

Procedure

Participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a web-based labor market tool developed to crowdsource tasks. MTurk presents several advantages when used for social science research, such as an integrated system for participant compensation, a large participant pool, and a streamlined recruitment process. This allows data to be gathered relatively quickly and inexpensively. Research has found that MTurk participants are typically demographically diverse, and the data obtained are as reliable as those obtained using conventional methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci et al., 2010). Also, the quality of the data collected using MTurk has been found to be higher than other forms of online sampling (Weinberg et al., 2014). MTurk has a built-in feedback system that assigns workers a rating based on the quality of past task completion. For this research, we accepted data from participants with a feedback score of no lower than 95% in order to help ensure data quality. While past work indicates that data quality is not influenced by compensation amount, evidence does suggest that survey compensation amount influences response rate, with higher amounts yielding greater participation in a shorter amount of time (Buhrmester et al., 2011). For this study, participants were compensated $0.65 for completing the online survey.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors of this study confirm that all procedures for this study complied with APA ethical standards for research involving human participants, including informed consent, and that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was received before starting this project. This study represents no conflicts of interest and, as a related note, the funding from this study came from internal funds from the authors’ institution.

Participants

Participants were selected from the United States and consisted of mothers or fathers having either two or three (in families with three children, parents reported on first and secondborns) non-disabled, biological children who resided with them. Participants indicated their age, race, education, income, and employment status. Participants also specified the ages and gender of their children. Consistent with previous studies on PEBC, the focus was on adolescent siblings. Adolescence is a time when turbulence usually manifests between parents and children, and this may present the greatest opportunity for parents to change expectations and practices. Age of the oldest child was between 12 years and 18 years and consistent with extant sibling literature (Shanahan et al., 2007a; Whiteman et al., 2003). The age spacing between first and secondborns was no longer than four years. The sample included 401 participants.

The final sample included 401 participants, of which 62.9% were female, 72.3% were married, and 61.4% were employed full time. The majority of participants were college educated, with 47.6% having completed a 4-year degree and 14.5% indicating post-baccalaureate education. Average household income was between US$75,000 and US$100,000 per year. The sample was 76.6% White, 4.5% Asian, 8.5% Black, 8.7% non-White Hispanic, 0.8% Native American, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 0.5% other.

Age of participants ranged from 26 years to 64 years (M = 39.91, SD = 6.36). Age of older siblings ranged from 12 years to 18 years (M = 14.5, SD = 2.0) and younger siblings from 8 years to 17 years (M = 11.84, SD = 2.26) with a mean age difference of 2.67 (SD = 0.96). Gender dyad composition was evenly split, 49% mixed gender and 51% same gender sibling pairs. Older siblings were 57.1% males and 42.9% females, and younger siblings were 49.9% males and 50.1% females. Average sibship size was 2.4 (SD = 0.49).

Measures

Parental experience-based change

PEBC was measured using a 40-item measure that was developed for this study. The measure assessed perceived positive and negative changes in parental monitoring, expectations, nurturing, and discipline. Ten items assessing parental monitoring (Kerr & Stattin, 2000) and 12 items assessing nurturing (Schwarz et al., 1985) were adapted from items from existing measures of parental monitoring and nurturing. These items were adapted in order to directly ask about perceptions of change in parental monitoring and nurturing from the older offspring to the younger. Eight items assessing expectations and 10 items assessing discipline were generated from ideas gleaned from reviewing the literature on parental expectations and discipline. Responses were based on a five-point scale with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items are listed in an online supplement.

Parenting style

Parenting style was measured using an adaptation of Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) Parenting Style Inventory (PSI). The original scale was meant to assess the child’s perception of their parents’ parenting style without explicitly asking about parenting practices. The measure assessed responsiveness, demandingness, and autonomy granting. Each of the three subscales contained five items for a total of 15 items. The measure used in this study was adapted to allow items to be answered by parents. Items include “I like my child to tell me his/her troubles,” “I tell my child that my ideas are correct and that he/she shouldn’t question them,” and “I point out ways my child could do better.” Response categories were measured on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Parents reported on their first and secondborn children. Cronbach’s alpha values were obtained as follows: responsiveness = 0.91, demandingness = 0.86, and autonomy granting = 0.82.

Parenting efficacy

The 7-item Parenting Sense of Competence efficacy scale (PSOC-efficacy; Johnston & Mash, 1989) was used to assess parents’ perceived efficacy, in general, and not to a specific child. Responses were based on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). Items include “Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily solved” and “If anyone can find the answer to what is troubling my child, I am the one.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.

Parent–child relationship quality

The 4-item measure, which was adapted from the Americans’ Changing Lives Survey (ACL; Umberson, 1992), was used to assess positive and negative qualities of the parent–child relationship. Two items were used to assess positive qualities and two were used to assess negative qualities. Items include “How much do you love and care for your child?” and “How much do you criticize your child?” Responses were based on a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = quite a bit, and 5 = a great deal). Parents were also asked to rate their overall relationship quality with each child on a scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). The measure has been shown to have acceptable reliability (e.g., 0.72 for mothers and 0.70 for fathers; Umberson, 1992). Parents reported on their relationship with their first and secondborn children. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78.

Parent perceptions of child achievement

Parents were asked to rate how successful they perceived their child to be as compared with others of the same age in the domains of career/education and relationships (romantic relationships and family life). Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1 = less successful, 2 = somewhat less successful, 3 = about the same as other people of his/her age, 4 = somewhat more successful, and 5 = more successful than other people of his/her age). Parents reported on their first and secondborn children.

These items were adapted from open-ended questions used by Ryff et al. (1994) and have been used to research parent–child relations (Birditt et al., 2010; Fingerman et al., 2012). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72.

Analytic Strategy

The first objective was to test the factor structure of the measure of PEBC. The sample (n = 401) was split in half at random, with one half (n = 199) being subjected to EFA and the other half (n = 202) used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was implemented in order to uncover a preliminary factor structure in the proposed measure of PEBC. EFA with an oblique rotation was conducted using SPSS 23. An oblique rotation is appropriate because dimensions of PEBC are not expected to be mutually exclusive. First, the EFA was conducted without determined factors. Parallel analysis and assessment of eigenvalues were used to interpret the initial output. Items with low communality (<0.30), items that did not load highly on a single factor, or items that cross-loaded on multiple factors were considered for removal. The analysis was then constrained to a solution with the number of factors suggested in order to test the measure.

Next, based on the results of the EFA, CFA was conducted using structural equation modelling with Mplus 7 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2011). Model fit was assessed by evaluating the chi-square (significant outcomes should be noted, but allowed to continue), a comparative fit index (CFI) score above 0.90, a Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) above 0.90, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) score below 0.06 (Little, 2013). After achieving acceptable model fit, the factor analysis was performed, and factor loadings were assessed. Factor loadings were deemed acceptable ifβ ≥ 0.40 (Little, 2013).

Finally, validity and reliability were evaluated using the total sample (n = 401). Criterion validity was evaluated by using the resulting factors of PEBC to predict parenting outcomes in reference to the secondborn siblings who are believed to be influenced by PEBC, namely autonomy granting, demandingness, responsiveness, positive parent–child relationship, negative parent–child relationship, and parenting efficacy. Separate ordinary least squares regression (OLS) models were tested for each dependent variable (DV). Each model controlled for parent’s perception of older child achievement, parent and sibling age, sibling age difference, parent and sibling gender, and parent education. Models also controlled for parenting of firstborns for autonomy granting, demandingness, responsiveness, positive parent–child relationships, and negative parent–child relationships, whichever corresponded with the DV for the secondborn sibling. For example, the model with younger child autonomy granting as the DV controlled for parents’ granting of autonomy for the older child. This was done in order to find out whether PEBC variables predicted parenting for secondborns as compared to firstborn siblings. Reliability was examined using coefficient alpha using SPSS 23 software and also by using the split-half method also in SPSS 23.

Results

Factor Structure

Principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation resulted in eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Examination of the scree plot also indicted eight factors. One item (“I realize how important it is to be a good parent”) had communality lower than 0.3 and did not load onto any of the eight factors; hence, it was removed from the analysis. All remaining items showed communalities above 0.3 and all items loaded adequately (>0.4); there was no cross loading. Results of the EFA can be found in Tables 1 and 2. The eight factors corresponded with the eight dimensions of PEBC: more discipline, less discipline, more nurturing, less nurturing, higher expectations, lower expectations, more monitoring, and less monitoring.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings, Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance of Items.

	Factor Loadings
Items	More Discipline	Less Discipline	More Nurturing	Less Nurturing
I am more strict	0.76	−0.01	0.02	−0.08
More severe punishment	0.69	0.06	−0.09	0.14
More rules	0.74	−0.08	0.08	0.17
Give timeout or grounding	0.58	0.08	−0.04	−0.15
Revoke privileges for breaking rules	0.91	−0.02	−0.01	−0.04
More lenient	−0.05	0.74	0.12	0.13
Less severe punishment	0.03	0.81	−0.05	−0.16
Give fewer rules	0.03	0.77	−0.06	0.06
Less likely to give timeout or grounding	0.12	0.52	0.10	0.14
Less likely to take away privileges for breaking rules	−0.05	0.79	0.00	−0.05
Make a greater effort to talk	−0.01	−0.01	0.84	0.04
Listen more attentively	−0.06	0.03	0.82	0.05
Make a greater effort to spend time	0.06	0.06	0.68	−0.04
Pay closer attention to needs	−0.03	0.11	0.87	0.03
Make greater effort to understand problems/worries	0.04	−0.06	0.87	−0.09
Make greater effort to make feel important	−0.02	−0.06	0.92	−0.06
Less concerned with talking	−0.03	0.00	0.07	0.87
Less concerned with listening attentively	0.08	−0.01	−0.09	0.75
Less concerned with spending time	−0.02	−0.18	0.04	0.85
Less concerned with needs	−0.01	0.07	−0.03	0.78
Less concerned with understanding problems/worries	−0.10	0.20	−0.08	0.74
Less concerned about making feel important	0.07	0.00	0.00	0.73
Eigenvalues	2.54	1.68	9.23	6.71
% of variance	6.52	4.31	23.66	17.21

Note. Factor loadings over 0.40 appear in bold.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance of Items.

	Factor Loadings
Items	Higher Expectations	Lower Expectations	More Monitoring	Less Monitoring
Try to have higher expectations	0.76	0.04	−0.02	−0.10
Have higher expectations	0.91	−0.08	0.04	0.08
Do a better job parenting	0.41	0.01	−0.01	−0.03
Try to have lower expectations	−0.08	0.74	0.09	0.03
Have lower expectations	−0.05	0.88	−0.04	−0.07
Feel like I have less control over future	0.04	0.58	−0.04	0.10
Feel like parenting matters less	0.13	0.44	−0.09	0.18
Make a greater effort to know who friends are	0.01	−0.04	0.79	0.01
Make greater effort to know about free time	−0.11	−0.14	0.71	0.11
Pay closer attention to grades	0.27	0.01	0.54	0.01
More likely to ask about free time	−0.03	0.06	0.79	−0.08
More likely to ask about friends	0.03	0.07	0.82	0.03
Less concerned about friends	0.01	−0.02	−0.07	0.66
Less concerned about free time	0.04	0.02	0.07	0.72
Less concerned about grades	−0.05	0.08	−0.03	0.58
Less likely to ask about free time	0.03	−0.01	0.04	0.80
Less likely to ask about friends	−0.08	0.01	0.03	0.73
Eigenvalues	1.23	1.51	2.00	2.06
% of variance	3.15	3.87	5.13	5.29

Note. Factor loadings over 0.40 appear in bold.

Confirmatory factor analysis was then executed using the solution from the EFA. The model showed adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, and TLI = 0.92). Standardized factor structure from the results of the CFA can be found in Figure 1, and correlations between latent factors can be found in Table 3.

Figure 1.

Standardized factor structure of PEBC.

Table 3.

Correlations between Factors of CFA (N = 202).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. More strict
2. Less strict	0.26***
3. More nurturing	0.02	0.12
4. Less nurturing	0.26***	0.35***	0.00
5. Higher expectations	0.26***	0.32***	0.33***	0.18*
6. Lower expectations	0.30***	0.42***	−0.12	0.43***	0.15*
7. More monitoring	0.26***	0.10	0.45***	0.00	0.33***	−0.08
8. Less monitoring	0.15*	0.27***	−0.02	0.42***	0.18*	0.30***	−0.11

Note. *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001.

Validity

Results of the OLS models testing concurrent validity are found in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4.

Results of an OLS Regression Predicting Aspects of the Parent–Child Relationship from Analysis Variables.

	Efficacy			Positive Relationship			Negative Relationship
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
More strict	−0.12*	0.06	−0.11	−0.08**	0.03	−0.15	0.11*	0.04	0.12
Less strict	−0.02	0.05	−0.02	0.01	0.03	0.02	−0.09*	0.04	−0.10
More nurturing	0.05	0.05	0.06	0.00	0.02	0.01	−0.09*	0.04	−0.11
Less nurturing	0.06	0.06	0.06	−0.08*	0.03	−0.13	0.10*	0.05	0.10
Higher expectations	0.16***	0.04	0.19	0.08***	0.02	0.18	0.04	0.03	0.05
Lower expectations	−0.22***	0.06	−0.21	−0.17***	0.03	−0.29	−0.03	0.05	−0.03
More monitoring	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.06
Less monitoring	0.02	0.06	0.02	0.08**	0.03	0.14	−0.01	0.04	−0.01
DV measure of older sibling				0.35***	0.04	0.40	0.60***	0.04	0.59
Perceptions of achievement	0.33***	0.05	0.33	0.01	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.04	0.02
Older sibling age	0.05*	0.02	0.12	−0.01	0.01	−0.03	0.01	0.02	0.02
Sibling age difference	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.04
Parent age	−0.02***	0.01	−0.17	0.00	0.00	−0.06	−0.01	0.01	−0.04
Older sibling gender	−0.01	0.08	−0.01	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.00	0.06	0.00
Gender composition	0.09	0.08	0.05	0.06	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.06	0.01
Parent gender	0.02	0.09	0.01	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.02	0.07	0.01
Parent education	−0.11*	0.05	−0.10	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.05	0.04	0.05
R²		0.23			0.36			0.41

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. DV = dependent variable.

Table 5.

Results of an OLS Regression Showing Predicted Parenting Style from Analysis Variables.

	Responsiveness			Demanding			Autonomy
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
More strict	−0.02	0.02	−0.04	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.08***	0.02	−0.12
Less strict	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.08***	0.02	0.14
More nurturing	0.01	0.02	0.04	−0.02	0.02	−0.05	0.01	0.02	0.01
Less nurturing	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.03	0.02	−0.06	−0.01	0.02	−0.01
Higher expectations	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.06***	0.02	0.14	−0.00	0.02	−0.00
Lower expectations	−0.01	0.02	−0.03	−0.07**	0.02	−0.14	0.03	0.02	0.05
More monitoring	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.01	−0.03	0.02	−0.05
Less monitoring	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.02	0.00	−0.01	0.02	−0.02
DV measure of older sibling	0.63***	0.04	0.61	0.70***	0.04	0.68	0.69***	0.03	0.73
Perception of achievement	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.04*	0.02	−0.08	−0.00	0.02	−0.00
Older sibling age	−0.01	0.01	−0.05	−0.01	0.01	−0.03	−0.01	0.01	−0.03
Sibling age difference	−0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.00	0.02	0.00	−0.04*	0.01	−0.07
Parent age	0.00	0.00	−0.04	0.00	0.00	−0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01
Older sibling gender	−0.05	0.03	−0.08	0.00	0.03	0.01	−0.02	0.03	−0.02
Gender composition	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.03
Parent gender	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.03	0.01	−0.03	0.04	−0.03
Parent education	0.01	0.02	0.03	−0.02	0.02	−0.04	0.01	0.02	0.02
R²		0.43			0.56			0.62

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. DV = dependent variable.

Efficacy

More discipline predicted a perceived decrease in perceived efficacy (β = −0.11, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05). Higher expectations predicted greater parental efficacy (β = 0.19, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001) and lower expectations predicted perceived decreases in parental efficacy (β = −0.22, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001). The model fit the data well (R² = 0.23, F(16, 381) = 6.93, p < 0.001).

Relationship positivity

The model predicting parent–child relationship positivity with secondborn offspring was significant (R² = 0.36, F(17, 380) = 12.67, p < 0.001). Perceived decreases in relationship positivity were predicted by more discipline (β = −0.15, SE = 0.03, p < 0.01), less nurturing (β = −0.13, SE = 0.03, p < 0.05), and lower expectations (β = −0.29, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001). Perceived increases in relationship positivity were also predicted by higher expectations (β = 0.18, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) and less monitoring (β = 0.14, SE = 0.03, p < 0.01).

Relationship negativity

A perceived increase in relationship negativity was predicted by more discipline (β = 0.12, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05) and less nurturing (β = 0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05), while a perceived decrease in relationship negativity was predicted by less discipline (β = −0.10, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05) and more nurturing (β = −0.11, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05). The model fit the data well (R² = 0.41, F(17, 380) = 15.58, p < 0.001).

Parenting style: responsiveness

None of the eight factors of PEBC significantly predicted responsiveness.

Parenting style: demandingness

A perceived increase in demandingness was predicted by higher expectations (β = 0.14, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001), and lower expectations predicted a perceived decrease in demandingness (β = −0.14, SE = 0.02, p < 0.01). The model fit the data well (R² = 0.56, F(17, 380) = 28.33, p < 0.001).

Parenting style: autonomy

Autonomy was associated positively with less discipline (β = 0.14, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) and negatively with more discipline (β = −0.14, SE = 0.12, p < 0.001). The model fit the data well (R² = 0.62, F(17, 380) = 36.53, p < 0.001).

Reliability

Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and all eight subscales showed acceptable reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values were as follows: more discipline, α = 0.83; less discipline, α = 0.86; more nurturing, α = 0.93; less nurturing, α = 0.91; higher expectations, α = 0.79; lower expectations, α = 0.79; more monitoring, α = 0.88; and less monitoring, α = 0.84.

Split-half reliability was also used to determine reliability, and the Spearman–Brown coefficient was used to determine split-half reliability. Acceptable values for the Spearman–Brown coefficient are those above 0.70. Results were as follows: more discipline = 0.76, less discipline = 0.79, more nurturing = 0.93, less nurturing = 0.90, higher expectations = 0.67, lower expectations = 0.73, more monitoring = 0.87, and less monitoring = 0.82. Split-half reliability for positive expectations is compromised due to the scale only having three items. All other split-half coefficients were satisfactory.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to create a measure of PEBC and evaluate its validity and reliability. Based on previous research suggesting that PEBC occurs in the domains of parental monitoring, expectations, discipline, and nurturing, a 40-item measure was developed to assess perceived changes, both positive and negative, in each of those dimensions of parenting for secondborn children based on experiences with firstborn children.

Construct Validity

Based on existing research, we expected that parents would perceive changes in their parenting of secondborn children based on experiences with firstborn children in the domains of parental monitoring, expectations, nurturing, and discipline. We anticipated that these perceived changes would be positive and negative, characterized by perceived increases or decreases in these domains. Results of the EFA and CFA supported these suppositions. Some parents reported perceived changes characterized by less monitoring, lower expectations, less nurturing, and more discipline. Conversely, some parents reported making changes to parenting, marked by reports of increased monitoring, higher expectations, increased nurturing, and less discipline. Furthermore, correlations between opposing factors were not strong. The strongest correlation between inverse domains was 0.26, between more discipline and less discipline. This implies that perceived changes in domains of PEBC are not mutually exclusive. These results suggest that the measure has sound construct validity and that it is effectively measuring parents’ perceptions of PEBC.

Criterion Validity

When assessing the criterion validity of a measure, it is ideal if the measure is compared to an already established measure of a related concept. However, to date, there is no established measure of PEBC. For this study, criterion validity was tested by examining associations between parenting outcomes, which have been linked with PEBC in the domains of monitoring, expectations, nurturing, and discipline.

Monitoring

Existing research suggests that parents have greater knowledge of secondborn offspring’s activities as a result of their experience with firstborn children. This greater knowledge is accompanied by less conflict in parent–child relationships (Whiteman et al., 2003). Having greater knowledge of activities and behaviors implies that something, if only parents’ perception, has changed in the parent’s monitoring techniques. We attempted to measure these changes directly by asking parents if they made a greater effort to know about their child’s activities, if they were more likely to solicit information from their child, or if they showed less concern with their younger children’s activities based on their experience with older children. Results indicated that parents who reported being less concerned about monitoring their secondborn as a result of experience with their firstborn child, reported more relationship positivity with their secondborn child. While this result appears to run contrary to previous research on PEBC, the finding that less monitoring is associated with an improved relationship does fit within the monitoring literature and supports criterion validity for the measure of less monitoring. For example, when parents rely on direct solicitation to gain knowledge about their children, youths may feel overcontrolled (Kerr & Stattin, 2000), and that their privacy has been invaded (Hawk et al., 2008). Thus, less solicitation may promote a more harmonious parent–adolescent relationship. Results from the current study suggest that parents may have learned from their experience with firstborn children and changed the way they monitored secondborns. They may have felt that they oversolicited information from their firstborn and placed strain on the relationship. As a result of that experience, parents may have relaxed their monitoring of secondborn children, resulting in a more positive relationship.

Consistent with our assumptions, increased reported monitoring was not found to significantly predict relationship outcomes. One possible explanation for this could be rooted in how the measure of monitoring assesses the level of knowledge the parents possess about their child’s activities. According to Kerr and Stattin (2000), solicitation is not the primary means for parents to gain knowledge about their kids; rather, parents tend to gain the most knowledge by paying attention to child disclosures. The measure of parental monitoring, as it was designed for this study, is based more upon solicitation and less on paying attention to key disclosures. Future work should be directed at distinguishing parental monitoring and parental knowledge of child activities.

Discipline

Previous work suggests that perceived changes in conflict and discipline occur from one child to the next as a result of experience with firstborn offspring (Shanahan et al., 2007b), and it was expected that similar results would be produced using the measure developed for the current study. Specifically, we expected that parents who reported increased discipline with secondborns as a result of experience with firstborns would report having less relationship positivity and more relationship negativity with secondborns. We also expected that parents who felt that they decreased discipline of their secondborn child as a result of experience with their firstborn child would report more relationship positivity and less negativity. Results indicated that the measures for PEBC have strong criterion validity in both positive and negative disciplines. For example, parents who felt that they intentionally increased their discipline of their secondborn child as a result of experience with their firstborn child reported feeling that their parenting was less effective, and that their relationship with secondborns had more negativity and less positivity. Parents who perceived increased discipline for secondborns also reported granting less autonomy. In this case, parents may have felt like their parenting was ineffective with their firstborn and made changes to increase discipline for their secondborns, resulting in less autonomy granting and a less harmonious relationship.

Parents who felt they intentionally decreased discipline of their secondborn child as a result of experience with firstborn children reported having less negativity in their relationship and granted more autonomy. It is possible that parents who reported lower levels of discipline may have felt that they were too strict with their firstborn child and made an effort to be less strict with their secondborn. As a result, the relationship with the secondborn was marked by less negativity while granting more autonomy. Taken together, these results suggest that the measure of PEBC in discipline has criterion validity, as it is predicting parent-reported changes in parenting.

Nurturing

According to extant literature, parents reported more warmth with secondborn offspring during adolescence than they did with firstborn offspring (Shanahan et al., 2007a). One possible explanation for this finding is that parents learn how to promote harmonious relations with their secondborn children from experience with their firstborns. By measuring whether parents intentionally tried to increase or decrease their warmth as a result of experience with earlier born children, we expected a perceived increase in nurturing for the secondborn child to result in higher reports of relationship positivity and lower reports of relationship negativity, and that perceptions decreased nurturing would correspond with reports of decreased positivity and increased negativity. These premises were partially supported. Parents who intentionally increased their nurturing of their secondborn child as a result of experience with their firstborn child reported having less relationship negativity with their secondborn child but did not report a significant change in relationship positivity. Parents who reported showing less concern for nurturing their secondborns as a result of experience with their firstborn child reported having more relationship negativity and less relationship positivity with their secondborn child. There are several possible reasons as to why parents who reported increasing nurturing with secondborns as a result of experience with firstborns did not report higher levels of relationship positivity with secondborns. Parents who tried to increase nurturing may have done so because they felt that they did not do a good enough job nurturing their firstborn, which may have affected the relationship with the firstborn. From what is known about indirect sibling influence, relationship issues may spillover and affect the relationships with secondborn children. It is possible that this spillover effect muted any perceived change in relationship positivity. This may also have to do with the expectations of the child. If a child expects a warm and positive relationship with their parent, they may be less likely to be affected than if the parent is showing less warmth than they expect. These results, however, do support criterion validity by showing that parents felt like they changed the way they nurture their secondborn children, and that perceived change resulted in more positive or negative relationships with secondborn children. Results align well with what was expected and support the fact that the measure has sound criterion validity.

Expectations

Existing research suggests that parenting expectations may change for secondborn children as a result of experience with firstborn children (East, 1998; Whiteman & Buchanan, 2002). These reported changes were accompanied by low perceptions of parental efficacy (East, 1998) and perceived changes in parent–adolescent relationships (Whiteman & Buchanan, 2002). We expected that parents who raised their expectations for secondborns as a result of experience with firstborns would report feeling a higher level of efficacy and higher relationship quality with secondborns, and that parents who lowered expectations would feel a lower level of efficacy and have lower relationship quality with secondborns. These assumptions were confirmed and overall results support criterion validity. For example, parents who reported having higher expectations for their younger child based on experience with their older child reported feeling like their parenting was more effective. We also found that parents who reported raising expectations were more demanding of their secondborn child and reported more relationship positivity. This may be due to parents feeling like they did a good job with their first born and want to raise the bar of their subsequent child. Conversely, parents who reported deliberately lowering their expectations of their secondborn child as a result of experience with their firstborn child reported feeling like their parenting was less effective, and that their relationship with their secondborn was less positive. They also reported that they were less demanding of their secondborn child. This supports validity in that parents reported that they changed their parenting and parenting outcomes reflected a change had been made.

Reliability

After testing each factor for internal consistency, results indicated that the measures for positive and negative monitoring, discipline, nurturing, as well as negative expectations were reliable. This means that the items within each of the factors correlated well with each other and are measuring the same construct. The only factor that failed to achieve the threshold for internal consistency was the measure of positive expectations or raising expectations for secondborns as a result of experience with firstborns. This factor had an acceptable alpha but did not have acceptable split-half reliability. This was due to the factor only containing 3 items, and when the items are split, one half only has one item and therefore cannot correlate. For that reason, the split-half score of the measure of positive expectations should be disregarded. While internal consistency of PEBC was supported by the current study, future work should focus on measuring the external reliability of PEBC. This can be done by using methods such as test–retest, which would measure the consistency of PEBC over time. This could not be done at the time of the current study but doing so would add to confidence of reliability.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study has limitations that should be noted. First, the data were cross-sectional and, therefore, causality cannot be inferred from the data. Whether or not parents actually change their parenting over time from one child to the next is an inherently longitudinal question that would require multiple phases of data to answer. Future research should use PEBC to collect longitudinal data.

Second, the study was based on self-report from only one parent. Like all self-report measures, it is prone to bias. It is possible that parents rated themselves more favorably than accurately. Future studies should use outcomes reported by the child.

Third, while the use of MTurk for sample collection has advantages, as discussed previously, limitations are inherent. As with most Internet samples, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the demographic information given. However, Rand (2011) addressed this concern by comparing the responses to six demographic questions given by the same subjects who completed two different studies and found a high degree of agreement (between 96% and 81% agreement). Also, the sample for the current study is consistent with other MTurk samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011) and consisted of females who were highly educated. Future research should focus on recruiting a more diverse sample.Despite its limitations, the current study makes valuable contributions to the literature. First, while the current study was cross-sectional and actual parenting changes over time could not be observed, it established that parents perceived changes in their parenting of secondborns as a result of experience with firstborns. The perception that they are changing their parenting due to experience with firstborns is important in distinguishing PEBC from other processes that may influence differential treatment of siblings. Second, it adds to the literature on sibling influence by establishing a way to directly measure one of the major dimensions of sibling influence. Prior to this study, changes in parenting from one child to the next had been inferred but never directly assessed. Having a method of measuring PEBC directly will allow sibling researchers to explore hidden family processes that were previously not measurable and explore outcomes associated with PEBC, parental differential treatment, etc. For example, future work can use the measure to assess whether or not and in what circumstances PEBC is beneficial or detrimental to child development and sibling relationships. Third, the current study contributes to parenting literature by providing empirical evidence for an idea that is widely accepted in parenting popular culture. Future research can be directed toward examining motivations for PEBC. For example, do parents perceive change because they are disappointed with firstborn’s outcomes, or do they feel that they can simply do better? Did they relax because of positive experiences or did they become discouraged because of negative experiences and give up? What are the parent-level factors that influence whether or not PEBC occurs? PEBC is a concept that is often discussed in popular culture yet largely ignored by research. The current study gives researchers tools to more effectively measure, analyze, and interpret this complex family process.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513x21994129 – Supplemental material for Parenting as Beta Testing: Perceived Changes in Parenting from Firstborns to Secondborns

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jfi-10.1177_0192513x21994129 for Parenting as Beta Testing: Perceived Changes in Parenting from Firstborns to Secondborns by Joseph S. Rand, Ryan D. McLean and Alexander C. Jensen in Journal of Family Issues

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Ryan D. McLean

Alexander C. Jensen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Albanese

A. M.

Russo

G. R.

Geller

P. A.

(2019). The role of parental self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661

Anastasi

(1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). Macmillan.

Bank

Burraston

Snyder

(2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(1), 99–125.

Birditt

K. S.

Fingerman

K. L.

Zarit

S. H.

(2010). Adult children’s problems and successes: Implications for intergenerational ambivalence. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65(2), 145–153.

Brody

G. H.

(1998). Sibling relationship quality: Its causes and consequences. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 1–24.

Brody

G. H.

Stoneman

McCoy

J. K.

(1992). Parental differential treatment of siblings and sibling differences in negative emotionality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 643–651.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98.

10.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Harper & Row.

11.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487.

12.

Dunn

(1998). Siblings, emotion, and development of understanding. In: Braten

(Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny: Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 158–168). Cambridge University Press.

13.

East

P. L.

(1998). Impact of adolescent childbearing on families and younger siblings: Effects that increase younger siblings’ risk for early pregnancy. Applied Developmental Science, 2(2), 62–74.

14.

Fingerman

K. L.

Cheng

Y. P.

Birditt

Zarit

(2012). Only as happy as the least happy child: Multiple grown children’s problems and successes and middle-aged parents’ well-being. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(2), 184–193.

15.

Hawk

S. T.

Hale

W. W.

III Raaijmakers

Q. A. W.

Meeus

(2008). Adolescents’ perceptions of privacy invasion in reaction to parental solicitation and control. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 583–608.

16.

Haynes

S. N.

Richard

D. S.

Kubany

E. S.

(1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

17.

Jensen

A. C.

Whiteman

S. D.

Fingerman

K. L.

Birditt

K. S.

(2013). “Life Still Isn’t Fair”: Parental differential treatment of young adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 438–452.

18.

Johnston

Mash

E. J.

(1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(2), 167–175.

19.

Jones

T. L.

Prinz

R. J.

(2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004

20.

Kerr

Stattin

(2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.

21.

Laursen

Coy

K.C.

Collins

W.A.

(1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817–832.

22.

Little

P. T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

23.

McGue

Sharma

Benson

(1996). Parent and sibling influences on adolescent alcohol use and misuse: Evidence from a U.S. adoption cohort. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 8–18.

24.

McHale

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

Jackson-Newsom

Tucker

C. J.

Crouter

A. C.

(2000). When does parents’ differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149–172.

25.

Minuchin

(1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302.

26.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

27.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.

28.

Patterson

G. R.

(1986). The contribution of siblings to training for fighting: A microsocial analysis. In Olweus

Block

Radke-Yarrow

(Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviors (pp. 235–261). Academic.

29.

Rand

D. G.

(2011). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.03.004

30.

Ryff

C. D.

Lee

Y. H.

Essex

M. J.

Schmutte

P. S.

(1994). My children and me: Midlife evaluations of grown children and of self. Psychology and Aging, 9(2), 195.

31.

Schwarz

J. C.

Barton-Henry

M. L.

Pruzinsky

(1985). Assessing child-rearing behavior: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462–479.

32.

Shanahan

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

Osgood

D. W.

(2007a). Warmth with mothers and fathers from middle childhood through adolescence: Within and between family comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 43, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.551

33.

Shanahan

McHale

S. M.

Osgood

D. W.

Crouter

A. C.

(2007b). Conflict with mothers and fathers from middle childhood through adolescence: Within and between family comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 43, 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.539

34.

Stormshak

E. A.

Bellanti

C. J.

Bierman

K. L.

(1996). The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 79–89.

35.

Umberson

(1992). Relationships between adult children and their parents: Psychological consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 664–674.

36.

Updegraff

K. A.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2000). Adolescents’ sex-typed friendship experiences: Does having a sister versus a brother matter? Child Development, 71(6), 1597–1610.

37.

Weinberg

J. D.

Freese

McElhattan

(2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310.

38.

Whiteman

S. D.

Buchanan

C. M.

(2002). Mothers’ and children’s expectations for adolescence: The impact of perceptions of an older sibling’s experience. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.16.2.157

39.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2003). What parents learn from experience: The first child as a first draft? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 608–621.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB