Firstborn Children’s Reactions to Mother-Doll Interaction Do Not Predict Their Jealousy of a Newborn Sibling: A Longitudinal Pilot Study

Abstract

Mothers are concerned about their firstborn children’s acceptance of a baby sibling. Observing children’s reactions to mothers interacting with an infant doll simulator has been offered as one means of seeing how children will react to the baby sibling. A longitudinal pilot study with 30 pregnant mothers and their firstborn children was conducted comparing children’s behaviors to mother-doll interaction in the laboratory before birth with behaviors during home observations of mother-sibling interaction 1 month after birth. Children responded to mother-doll and mother-sibling interaction differently, with no significant associations across children’s behaviors in mother-doll and mother-sibling interactions. The use of an infant doll simulator before birth did not reliably predict children’s behavioral adjustment after the birth of a baby sibling.

The birth of an infant sibling is a normative life experience for most children and their mothers. Even though children’s reactions to the birth of a sibling vary greatly, most children experience few difficulties (Volling et al., 2017; Volling, 2012). In fact, many young children seem eager to help their mothers in the care of their newborn siblings (Song & Volling, 2015) and starting at 4 months after the birth, engage in more positive (e.g., involvement, teaching, empathy) than negative (e.g., conflict, aggression, rivalry) interactions with their baby siblings (Oh et al., 2015). Some children, however, do engage in jealous and disruptive behaviors soon after the birth and will go on to develop externalizing and aggressive behavior problems later in the year (Volling et al., 2014). Therefore, understanding what predicts children’s early reactions to a baby sibling shortly after birth is worthy of further investigation.

Mothers are often concerned about children’s difficult behavior and emotional distress after the arrival of the baby sibling (Merilo, 1988; Walz & Rich, 1983), but information on how best to prepare firstborn children for the birth of a baby sibling is not often based on current research on the transition to siblinghood. Further, attendance at sibling preparation classes for young children offered by Lamaze instructors at local hospitals did not predict how well firstborn children adjusted to the birth of a sibling (Beyers-Carlson & Volling, 2017). Therefore, it would be helpful if there were some means of assessing how children would react to a baby sibling even before the birth so mothers can help prepare themselves and their children for the transition. The main goal of the current study was to examine one means of doing so by determining whether children’s behavioral reactions to their mothers interacting with a simulated baby doll in the laboratory 1 month before the birth would predict their behavioral responses to their mothers interacting with their baby sibling at home 1 month after the birth.

Using a Baby-Doll Paradigm to Predict Children’s Jealousy of a Newborn Sibling

Two lines of research have focused on young children’s jealousy. One line focuses on siblings and specifically, how one sibling reacts to their parent interacting with the other sibling, either in the laboratory or at home (Miller et al., 2000; Teti & Ablard, 1989; Volling et al., 2002; 2014). A second line of research uses a life-like baby doll as a social rival to elicit young children’s jealousy responses when mothers interact with the doll (e.g., Hart & Carrington, 2002; Mize & Jones, 2012; Murphy et al., 2020; Szabó et al., 2013). Some have suggested that the baby-doll paradigm can be used to simulate children’s jealousy and predict how children will react when a baby sibling is born (Chapman & Hart, 2017), yet this has never been tested empirically. We bring together for the first time both lines of research into a single study. The first aim of this longitudinal pilot study was to compare children’s behavioral responses in a mother-doll laboratory session before the birth with their responses to mothers’ interactions with the newborn sibling shortly after birth.

Prior observational research on mothers interacting with both a newborn and their firstborn at home found that mothers actively attempted to respond to both children’s needs simultaneously rather than focusing on only one child at a time (Kojima, 1999). In other words, mothers were more likely to hold and care for the newborn during close contact while at the same time, interacting verbally with their firstborn children from a distance, suggesting that even when mothers are interacting with their infants, they do not ignore their firstborn children. We designed both the baby-doll session in the laboratory and the home-based session of mother-infant interaction to be similar, with both being 10 minutes in length, and also allowing mothers to respond to their children’s approaches and protests naturally, whether interacting with the baby sibling or responding as they believed they would if the baby doll were the actual baby sibling.

Mothers are often concerned about children’s difficult behavior and emotional distress after the arrival of the baby sibling, but information on how best to prepare firstborn children for the birth of a baby sibling is not often based on current research on the transition to siblinghood.

Can We Predict Children’s Behavioral Adjustment Using the Baby-Doll Paradigm?

Recent research indicates there is an increase in children’s externalizing behavior problems in the month after the birth of their infant sibling (Kolak & Volling, 2013), even if short-lived (Volling et al., 2017). Further, children’s approach-avoidant and disruptive behaviors in response to mother-infant interaction in the month following the birth of a sibling predicted both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems 3 months later (Volling et al., 2014). The second aim of the current research was to examine relations between children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems with their behaviors in the baby-doll paradigm before the birth and also during mother-infant interaction 1 month after the birth. We were particularly interested in whether the baby-doll paradigm could be used to predict children’s behavioral adjustment to the birth of a sibling. If so, then the baby-doll paradigm might provide both childbirth educators and mothers with an opportunity not only to observe how children would react during mother-infant interactions once the baby sibling was born, but also, whether they would have difficulties adjusting to the transition.

The current study was an exploratory longitudinal investigation with two aims: (1) to compare observations of children’s behaviors in response to mother-doll interaction in the laboratory before birth (prenatal visit) with their behaviors in response to mother-infant interaction in the home 1 month after the birth of the sibling (postnatal visit); and (2) to determine whether children’s behaviors in response to mother-doll interaction and mother-infant interaction were related to children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.

METHODS

Participants

Thirty-four pregnant mothers and their firstborn children aged 18–59 months (M = 32.77, SD = 12.89) were recruited between November 2017 and November 2018. Four families dropped before participating in the lab visit (e.g., miscarriage, no further interest, or missing the scheduled appointment), leaving 30 mothers and children. Of these, all but one (due to the infant’s unexpected health issues) participated in the longitudinal follow-up at 1 month postpartum. Table 1 presents demographic information for the full sample.

TABLE 1. Mothers, Firstborn (N = 30) and Newborn Children (N = 29) Characteristics.

Variables and coding	n(%) or M (SD)
Mothers
Approximate age in years	32.83 (4.15)
Race and ethnicity
1.White	18 (60.0%)
2.Latina	4 (13.3%)
3.Black	3 (10.0%)
4.Asian/Pacific Islander	3 (10.0%)
5.Biracial	2 (6.7%)
Education
1.Some college, AA, vocational or technical degree	4 (13.3%)
2.Bachelor’s degree	11 (36.7%)
3.Master’s, MD, JD, or PhD	15 (50.0%)
Marital status
0.Not married	1 (3.0%)
1.Married	29 (97.0%)
Total family income in the past year
1.$0–$49,999	4 (13.3%)
2.$50,000–$99,999	17 (56.7%)
3.$100,000–$149,999	3 (10.0%)
4.More than $150,000	6 (20.0%)
Pregnancy plan
1.Both wanted and planned	19 (63.3%)
2.Both wanted but not right now	8 (26.7%)
3.Neither parent wanted nor planned	3 (10.0%)
Firstborn children
Age in months	32.77 (12.89)
Gender
Girl	16 (53.3%)
Boy	14 (46.7%)
Newborn infants
Age in days	35.03 (6.25)
Gender
Girl	15 (51.7%)
Boy	14 (46.7%)

Mothers pregnant with their second child were recruited from the Midwestern U.S. through obstetrics clinics and a website managed by the University of Michigan health care system to recruit research participants. The following criteria were used: (1) women pregnant with a second child; (2) aged 18-years or older, (3) whose firstborn children were younger than 5 years old; (4) with no known developmental delays or physical anomalies, and (5) a healthy full-term pregnancy (>37 weeks).

Design and Procedures

The study involved two times of data collection: A pre-birth laboratory visit during the last trimester of the mothers’ pregnancy (Time 1) and a post-birth home visit approximately 1 month after the birth of the infant sibling (Time 2). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Michigan (HUM00131434).

Prenatal Laboratory Visit

Mothers accompanied children to the university laboratory, which was arranged as an infant nursery and included a crib, changing table, sofa, a rocking chair, a small child-sized table and chairs, floor mats, and age-appropriate toys (e.g., puzzle, zoo playset, kitchen items, a musical guitar, dump truck and blocks) for children’s play. Mothers and children were observed in several video-recorded sessions but data for the current report were from a 10-minute mother-doll interaction session with children present. For this session, a female experimenter (E) entered carrying the infant simulator wrapped in a gray colored blanket with its body and head hidden from view. The E told the mother she needed to leave her baby with the mother while she went down the hall to do some work. The mother was asked to sit in a rocking chair and was then handed the doll before E left the room. The simulator resembled a newborn infant (7 pounds, 21 inches; RealCare Baby^® 3 from Realityworks^®) and was dressed in a green one-piece outfit. The E called the doll “my baby” instead of using gender-specific pronouns or names, and mothers were also instructed not to use gender pronouns, if at all possible, when interacting with the doll. Mothers were instructed to interact with the doll affectionately for 10 minutes as if it were a real infant and how they believed they would interact with their own baby when born. They were also told they should respond to their children’s social bids as they would do naturally at home and how they believed they would interact with them once the infant sibling was born. The goal here was to simulate a mother-doll interaction session to mimic the naturalistic home situation when mothers would be interacting with the newborn sibling in the presence of their children. The baby doll was programmed via a laptop computer in an adjoining room to emit coos and coughs in a random order every 2 minutes to simulate real baby sounds.

Postnatal Home Visit at 1-Month After Birth

Approximately 1 month after the birth, a similar 10-minute observational session involving the mothers, infant siblings, and children was conducted during a home visit. Mothers were asked to focus their attention on the infant and minimize their interaction with their children, but not to ignore their children, and to respond as they normally would if the children approached them or the baby sibling. Both the laboratory and home visits were video recorded.

Observational Coding System for Children’s Jealous Behaviors

Children’s behaviors were coded from the video recordings of the prenatal laboratory and postnatal home visits using behavioral coding systems used in prior research on sibling jealousy (Miller et al., 2000; Volling et al., 2002, 2014). Three coders were trained to use 15-second interval sampling, noting whether the behavior was present (1) or absent (0) within the interval, and until inter-coder agreement was above 70%. Approximately 20% of videos were double-coded and reliability calculated using Cohen’s Kappa coefficients (κ). Kappa agreement is often lower when behaviors occur infrequently (Feinstein & Cicchetti, 1990), but all reported kappas were within the moderate (>.41) to excellent (>.75) range (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Children’s Behaviors

The following behaviors were coded: (a) joining positively (κ = .71)—physically approaches or vocalizes positively toward mother while interacting with doll/infant, (b) self-focused play/active exploration (κ =.60)—focuses on play and is immersed in exploration during most of the 15 second-interval, with a quick glance at mother; (c) imitating/paralleling (κ = 1.00)—imitates mother’s caretaking behaviors (e.g., holding, rocking, shushing) with toy or stuffed animal; (d) watching/monitoring (κ =.52)—watches or monitors interaction closely or at a distance, with no attempts to join or interrupt the interaction; (e) avoidance/distancing (κ = 1.00)—avoids or distances self from mother-doll/infant interaction by hiding, trying to leave the room, or turning their back on mother); (f) protest/demanding (κ = .54) –verbally protests interactions with doll/infant or demands mother attend to them, and not the doll/infant; (g) attention seeking (κ = .50)—draws mother’s attention away from the doll/infant and to self (e.g., vocalizing, showing an object) without physically disrupting interaction; (h) comfort seeking (κ = .82)—makes physical contact or seeks proximity; (i) negativity (κ = .66)—physically or verbally aggresses against mother, doll/infant, or objects with anger and frustration. Total scores were calculated based on the percentage of intervals out of 40 total in which the behavior occurred.

Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems

Mothers completed the 100-items of the widely-used and validated Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL 1.5–5 years: Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) at T1 and T2 using a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true) to create two broadband behavior problem scales: Internalizing (e.g., emotional reactivity anxious/depressed, withdrawal) and externalizing behaviors (attention problems, aggression).

RESULTS

Preliminary analyses using t-tests and correlations revealed no significant relations between children’s behaviors and children’s gender or age, or the gender of the infant, so these were not considered in further analyses.

Paired samples t-tests were conducted to examine mean differences across the prenatal and postnatal sessions with children’s observed behaviors as the dependent variables, and cross-time correlations were conducted to examine stability in individual differences across the prenatal and postnatal sessions. Means, standard deviations, and t-values from these analyses are presented in Table 2, along with the intercorrelations.

TABLE 2. Intercorrelations and T-Tests for Children’s Behaviors in the Prenatal Laboratory Visit With Doll (N = 30) and 1-Month Postnatal Home Visit With Baby Sibling (N = 29).

Children’s behaviors	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Joining	.22	−.54**	.27	.27	−.25	.49**	−.18	.40*	−.19
2. Play/active exploration	−.68**	−.20	−.18	.07	−.23	.24	−.10	−.27	−.05
3.Imitation/paralleling	.08	.04	−.08	−.14	−.06	−.25	.13	−.14	−.06
4. Watch/monitoring	−.37*	−.15	−.05	.02	−.27	.09	−.13	−.09	.19
5. Avoid/distancing	.07	−.00	−.08	−.19	−.06	.18	.07	−.14	.09
6. Attention seeking	−.14	.23	.09	.07	−.09	−.10	.10	.14	−.19
7. Protest/demanding	.02	−.55**	−.20	.40*	−.03	−.11	.33 +	−.16	.18
8. Comfort seeking	.04	−.39*	.03	.31	−.12	−.12	.34	.04	−.10
9. Negativity	−.29	.09	−.15	.31	−.07	−.17	.19	.37*	−.03
Prenatal M (SD)	23.10 (19.39)	70.21 (22.87)	1.67 (4.22)	21.74( 13.43)	0.50 (2.74)	2.70 (5.91)	3.63 (6.89)	4.78 (7.79)	0.75 (2.09)
Postnatal M (SD)	17.16 (19.99)	53.90 (23.19)	.17 (0.93)	27.07 (17.12)	4.34 (14.10)	12.59 (13.32)	5.20 (7.09)	12.54 (17.01)	1.38 (4.80)
t (29)	1.43	2.38*	1.88+	−1.47	−1.42	−3.48**	−.96	−2.22*	−.71

Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for the prenatal laboratory visit (T1) and below the diagonal for the postnatal home visit (T2). Correlations representing stability of behaviors across prenatal and postnatal visits are in the diagonal and underscored.

⁺p < .10,

^*p < .05,

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

Analyses revealed significant mean differences across prenatal and postnatal sessions with more self-focused play/active exploration, attention seeking, and comfort seeking, and marginally less imitation/paralleling, at 1 month during home visits of mother-infant interaction than during mother-doll interaction in the prenatal laboratory visits. Further, there were no significant correlations for children’s behaviors across the prenatal lab and the postnatal home visits (see diagonal of Table 2); only protest/demanding, r = .33, p = .079, showed a marginal association.

Correlations revealed stable individual differences in children’s internalizing, r = .69, p < .001, and externalizing behaviors, r = .83, p < .001, as well as change over time, with a significant increase in internalizing problems, t(28) = −3.34, p = .002, M_T1 = 3.51, SD = 2.47, M_T2 = 5.07, SD = 3.44, but no significant change in externalizing problems, M_T1 = 7.17, SD = 5.01, and M_T2 = 8.51, SD = 6.26.

Correlations were then conducted to determine if children’s behaviors during mother-doll interaction or mother-baby sibling interaction were significantly related to their internalizing and externalizing behaviors concurrently, and whether children’s behavior during the mother-doll interaction predicted their behavior problems once the infant was born. Only children’s imitation/paralleling during the lab visit was positively correlated with internalizing problems, both at the pre-birth visit, r = .40, p = .029, and after the birth of the sibling, r = .43, p = .019. There were no significant correlations between children’s behaviors during the prenatal laboratory visit and children’s externalizing behavior problems, either before or after the birth. There was only one significant correlation between children’s negativity during mother-infant interaction at the postnatal home visit and children’s postnatal externalizing problems, r = .47, p = .011.

DISCUSSION

The current study served as an initial pilot to gather data to test if children’s reactions to mothers interacting with a life-like, simulated baby doll during a laboratory visit before the birth would predict their actual reactions to mothers interacting with their baby sibling shortly after the birth. Volling et al. (2014) reported individual differences in children’s early reactions to both mother-infant and father-infant interaction during home visits 1 month after the birth of the baby sibling, with those children disrupting early parent-infant interactions developing behavioral difficulties later in the year. Thus, having some means of identifying these children even before the baby sibling is born could help both mothers and childbirth educators assist children with the transition to siblinghood.

Children’s Jealousy When Mother Interacts With Another

Children in the current study displayed very little negative behavior both in response to the simulated baby doll during the prenatal laboratory visit, and during the home visit with their 1-month-old baby sibling. Children responded negatively in only 2.2% of the intervals during mother-doll interaction and in only 3.3% during mother-infant interaction after the birth. These very low occurrences of children’s disruptive behaviors replicate previous findings in which only a small number of children (2.7%) reacted in a disruptive manner toward mother-infant or father-infant interaction with the 1-month-old baby sibling (Volling et al., 2014). Similarly, children in the current study were more likely to exhibit approach behaviors (i.e., joining, watching/monitoring, attention seeking, comfort-seeking) during both the mother-doll and mother-infant interactions than disruptive behaviors (i.e., protest/demanding and negativity) indicating that children are more inclined to approach and join both mother-doll and mother-infant interaction positively than protest or disrupt these interactions.

Can We Predict Children’s Jealousy of a Newborn Sibling From Interactions With a Baby Doll?

The primary aim of the current research was to examine whether children’s behavioral responses in the baby doll paradigm effectively simulated how they would respond to their actual baby sibling once born. The findings revealed that children interacted differently when attention was directed toward the baby sibling than toward a baby doll. They were less focused on their own play/exploration and sought more attention and comfort from their mothers while their mothers were interacting with their baby sibling than with a baby doll. These findings are consistent with others reporting decreases in mother-child joint attention, play involvement, and vocalizations directed to children once an infant sibling appeared on the scene (Dunn & Kendrick, 1980; Kendrick & Dunn, 1980; Stewart et al., 1987). Therefore, it appears that children spent more time in proximity to the mother-sibling dyad, approaching and seeking comfort, than when mothers were interacting with the baby doll.

Children’s reactions to their mothers interacting with a baby doll, even one designed to simulate a real baby, do not predict how children will actually respond to mother-infant interaction in the weeks and months after the birth of a baby sibling.

There were also no significant correlations between children’s behaviors during mother-doll and mother-infant interactions. Thus, how children responded to mother-doll interaction before the birth in the laboratory did not predict how they actually responded to mother-infant interaction in the home 1 month after the birth. In only one instance was there some evidence that children’s protest/demanding behavior was marginally stable over visits, suggesting the possibility that the baby doll paradigm might hold some promise in predicting which children might be using more protest/demanding behaviors and thus be at greater risk for developing problem behaviors. Future research with larger samples is needed to determine whether children who display disruptive and demanding behaviors, even if few in number, could be readily identified using the baby doll paradigm, as these children may be at risk for developing both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems after the transition (Volling et al., 2014).

Can We Predict Children’s Adjustment From Interactions With a Baby Doll?

Another aim of this research was to address whether children’s reactions in response to mother-doll interactions could predict their internalizing and externalizing behaviors, which are indicators of children’s adjustment after the birth of a baby sibling (Volling et al., 2017). Children’s internalizing behaviors significantly increased in the current study from before to after the birth, but their externalizing behaviors did not. This may be due to the small sample size and lack of power to detect such change, as others have reported increases in externalizing behaviors across the transition (e.g., Kolak & Volling, 2013). Interestingly, only children’s imitation/paralleling behavior during mother-doll interaction was related to their internalizing problems as reported by the mother both before and after the birth. Imitation/paralleling was coded when children imitated their mothers’ interactions (e.g., rocking, shushing) using another toy animal or doll. To our knowledge, this behavior has not been coded in previous studies, but was observed fairly frequently during both the mother-doll and mother-infant interaction sessions in this study. Additional research is needed to determine what children’s imitation/paralleling behavior might mean in response to observing mothers with either a baby doll or baby sibling, and why this behavior would be related to internalizing problems at both times.

Sibling preparation classes may prepare children and their mothers for the impending birth and hospital stay, but they do not assist children in adjusting to the changes in family life after the baby sibling is born.

With respect to the prediction of children’s externalizing problems, only children’s negativity (i.e., aggression, annoyance, defiance) in response to mother-infant interaction during home visits at 1 month was significantly correlated with externalizing behaviors at the same time. This result aligns with Volling and colleague’s (2014) finding that when children were dysregulated and disruptive in response to mother-infant interaction 1 month after the birth, they were at greater risk of externalizing behavior problems 3 months later. Although caution must be exercised given how few significant correlations emerged in this investigation, it appears these highly disruptive and aggressive behaviors, although rare, in response to mothers’ interactions with the baby sibling, may reflect children’s externalizing problems more so than their behaviors in a baby-doll paradigm. Obviously, future research is needed to investigate these links further.

Implications for Practice

The current findings demonstrate that children’s reactions to their mothers interacting with a baby doll, even one designed to simulate a real baby, do not predict how children will actually respond to mother-infant interaction in the weeks and months after the birth of a baby sibling. Mothers often report that they worry about how their firstborn children will react to the birth of a second baby and whether they will accept the newcomer into the household (Beyers-Carlson et al., 2019). Although antenatal education in the form of sibling preparation classes have been offered by childbirth educators, these child-focused classes have traditionally focused on the mothers’ hospital stay and the physiological changes accompanying pregnancy and childbirth, and not the psychosocial concerns surrounding family life with a new baby sibling. Sibling preparation classes may prepare children and their mothers for the impending birth and hospital stay, but they do not assist children in adjusting to the changes in family life after the baby sibling is born (Beyers-Carlson & Volling, 2017). As such, there is a clear need for alternate means of assisting mothers for their new role as the mother of two children, and the firstborns’ new role as an older sibling.

Recent research on the transition surrounding the birth of a second child has revealed the interconnections between children’s adjustment (e.g., externalizing and internalizing behavior problems) and other facets of family life, including increased levels of parenting stress, increases in physical and punitive discipline in response to children’s misbehaviors with the baby, more maternal depressive symptoms, increases in marital conflict, lower child care involvement by fathers, and an overall sense of feeling ineffective as a parent when attempting to manage children’s disruptive behaviors (Volling et al., 2017). Many children are between the ages of 2 and 3 years when the baby sibling is born (Volling, 2012), so are still too young to manage their emotions and behaviors themselves, and will need the assistance of supportive and understanding parents to help them with emotional and behavioral self-regulation. Thus, antenatal education designed to provide mothers with knowledge and skills to support their children’s emotional needs and to respond to misbehaviors using positive discipline (e.g., Juffer et al., 2018) will be far more effective in supporting children through the transition to siblinghood than the use of physical punishment or ignoring the children’s disruptive behaviors. Similar to other antenatal classes directed at couples across the transition to parenthood (e.g., Pruett et al., 2017; Solmeyer et al., 2014) providing couples with the means to settle conflicts constructively and work together as co-parents when engaged in the care of two young children (Kuo et al., 2017; Volling et al., 2015) may prove beneficial after the second birth as well. However, these classes should focus on the concerns of second-time mothers which may be quite distinct from the anxieties of first-time mothers. Mothers expecting their second child express more concerns about how to manage the care of two children and how to help the older child accept the new baby than they do about performing basic infant care (Beyers-Carlson et al., 2019). Developing such antenatal education classes would provide second-time mothers with the knowledge and skills necessary to prepare both themselves and their firstborn children for the birth of a baby sibling.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study provides the first glimpse into the use of a simulated baby doll as a means of predicting children’s jealousy and acceptance of a newborn sibling, there are a number of limitations to this work that need to be noted. First, the sample size was small and limited the statistical power of analyses, which may explain, in part, the lack of significant results. Future studies with larger samples are needed to extend the pilot work reported here and to determine the utility and validity of the baby-doll paradigm to detect behaviors such as protest/demanding that may predict similar behaviors once the baby sibling is born. Because of the small sample, we were also restricted to variable-centered statistical analyses. Different findings may have emerged if we used a person-centered approach that identifies groups of children sharing similar behavioral profiles (e.g., disrupted-dysregulated, approach-avoidant, and anxious-clingy) as was found in a sample of 241 families by Volling et al. (2014) during observations of children’s responses to mother-infant and father-infant interaction 1 month after the infant sibling’s birth.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to explicitly test whether children’s reactions in a simulated baby doll paradigm to elicit jealousy predicted their actual behavior in response to mothers interacting with a baby sibling. We found little evidence that how children responded in the baby-doll paradigm predicted how they would respond to their mothers interacting with a baby sibling soon after birth. Childbirth educators should refrain from recommending the use of a baby doll as a means of assessing how children will respond to mother-infant interaction in the weeks and months after the birth of a baby sibling. Instead, focusing on the psychosocial concerns of mothers in managing the care of two children, and their abilities to discipline and support their children over the transition will be better targets for antenatal education that will not only support children’s behavioral adjustment, but also provide mothers with the confidence to manage changes in family life once the baby sibling is born.

Biographies

BRENDA L. VOLLING is the Lois Wladis Hoffman Collegiate Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on early social and emotional development, parent-child interaction, fathering, and family relationships.

YEONJEE BAE is a PhD candidate in the doctoral program in developmental psychology at the University of Michigan. Her interests are in the development of young children's prosocial behavior and moral development.

LAUREN ROSENBERG received her MA from Teachers College at Columbia University in developmental psychology and worked for many years as a research project coordinator in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan. She is now employed as a Survey Analyst for Mathematica.

EMMA E.A. BEYERS-CARLSON received her PhD in developmental psychology from the University of Michigan. She is now employed by the Hypothesis Group in Seattle, WA.

RICHARD M. TOLMAN is the Sheldon D. Rose Collegiate Professor of Social Work at the University of Michigan. His research focuses on fathers and the effectiveness of interventions to prevent men’s violence against women.

JAMES E. SWAIN is a clinician-scientist in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health and the Department of Psychology at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. His current research focuses on women with opioid use disorder and postpartum depression, their neural brain circuitry, and their risks for parenting difficulties.

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any commercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.

FUNDING

This research was funded by the M-Cubed Program at the University of Michigan to Volling, Tolman, and Swain, and the Rackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan to Bae.