C 2005)

Social Justice Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2005 (

DOI: 10.1007/s11211-005-7367-2

Effects of Parental Differential Treatment on

Relationship Quality with Siblings and Parents:
Justice Evaluations as Mediators
Thomas Boll,1,3 Dieter Ferring,2 and Sigrun-Heide Filipp1

Based on equity theory, the present study analyzes to what extent justice evaluations mediate the effects of perceived parental differential treatment (PDT) on
relationship quality with siblings and parents as experienced in middle adulthood.
Middle-aged adult offspring (N = 709) rated how often they and a sibling received
parental recognition, nurturance, and demands for assuming filial responsibility.
In addition, they indicated their justice evaluations of PDT and completed measures of relationship quality to sibling and parents. Justice evaluations emerged as
either partial or complete mediators between PDT and relationship quality. Moreover, justice evaluations turned out to be more powerful predictors of relationship
quality to parents than PDT per se. Implications are discussed concerning factors
contributing to justice evaluations and the role of PDT within the context of other
justice issues in families.
KEY WORDS: parentchild relations; justice; sibling relations; adult offspring; middle aged.

Prior research on (in)equality and (in)justice as experienced within families

has selectively focused on particular kinds of distributive phenomena. For instance,
the division of household labor in marital relationships has received the most attention (for an overview see Mikula, 1998). The distribution of caregiving for
older parents among siblings (e.g., Cicirelli, 1992; Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2003)
and the parental distribution of inheritance among their children (e.g., Drake and
Lawrence, 2000) have received little research attention. There is another kind of
inequality in the family, namely parental differential treatment (PDT) of siblings,
1 Department

of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.

of Psychology, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
correspondence should be addressed to Thomas Boll, Department of Psychology, University of
Trier, Universitatsring 15, D-54286 Trier, Germany; e-mail: boll@uni-trier.de.

2 Department
3 All

155
C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
0885-7466/05/0600-0155/0

156

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

that has recently become a focus of study by developmental, clinical, and family
psychologists, although surprisingly not yet from scholars of social justice. The
vast majority of this research has described and assessed PDT in purely descriptive terms, that is, concerning the extent to which siblings are treated (or perceive
themselves to be treated) in similar or dissimilar ways by their parents with regard
to certain dimensions (e.g., affection, support, control). Most of the past research
on PDT focused on children and adolescents and has provided evidence that a
notable amount of PDTfor instance, with respect to affection and controlcan
be observed, and that it is related to negative outcomes for children themselves,
for the quality of sibling relationships, and, to some extent, for the quality of
childrens relationships with their parents (for an overview see Boll et al., 2001).
In addition, recent studies indicate that even in middle adulthood a considerable
amount of PDTwith respect to confidentiality, emotional closeness, recognition, and demands for assuming responsibilityis perceived by both parents and
their adult children (Aldous et al., 1985; Boll et al., 2002; Ferring et al., 2003;
Suitor and Pillemer, 2000). Moreover, there is evidence that adult childrens memories of PDT in childhood and adolescence (Bedford, 1992; Ferring et al., 2003)
as well as their current perceptions of PDT (Boll et al., 2003) are systematically
related to current relationship quality with their adult siblings and older parents.
In particular, adults who feel disfavored by their parents report having a worse
relationship with siblings and parents than those who feel equally treated.
While most prior research on PDT has not analyzed how the links between
PDT and relationship quality between siblings and/or between children and their
parents are mediated, a few attempts have been made recently to address this
issue. In particular, the role of justice evaluations as a possible mediator has been
suggested, and this seems to be reasonable from the perspective of social justice
research. Parental behavior can easily be regarded as a distribution of material
and symbolic outcomes to children of either positive (e.g., affection) or negative
valence (e.g., criticism), and it is likely to be evaluated by the children with respect
to distributive justice criteria (cf. Ihinger, 1975).
A first set of studies has explicitly assessed how PDT as a purely descriptive
category referring to (the amount of) similar or dissimilar parental treatment is
evaluated with respect to justice and has provided evidence concerning the extent
to which these evaluations are associated with possible outcome variables (e.g.,
relationship quality). Kowal and Kramer (1997) questioned whether siblings in
childhood make distinctions between appropriate and inappropriate cases of being
differentially treated by their parents and hypothesized that those children who
view PDT as justified will have more positive sibling relationships than children
who view PDT as unjustified. The authors found that in 75% of the occasions where
children had reported experiencing some degree of PDT (predominantly with
respect to affection and control), PDT had been judged as fair by these children.
Children who evaluated differential paternal (but not maternal) treatment as fair

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

157

also reported having a better relationship with their sibling than those children
who reported that differential paternal treatment was unfair. However, this study
did not consider the extent to which equal treatment was evaluated as just or unjust
and, furthermore, it failed to consider the direction of PDT (i.e., whether being
favored vs. disfavored is evaluated similarly or not).
Some of these issues were addressed in Kowal et al.s (2002) study of childrens and adolescents perceptions of PDT. They found, for example, that children
were more likely to regard PDT as unfair when the self was disfavored only with
regard to parental control (i.e., more control for self compared to sibling) and
not in the case of differential parental affection. In contrast, McHale et al. (2000)
observed in a sample of children and adolescents that the direction of PDT rated
for the warmth of the relationships, parents temporal involvement with the siblings, and allocation of household duties was not consistently related to justice
evaluations. In addition, they found that justice evaluations of parents differential
temporal involvement and differential allocation of household duties were more
closely related to the quality of sibling relationships than was PDT itself.
Even though the studies reviewed earlier demonstrate how younger children
and adolescents evaluate PDT with regard to justice and thatat least with respect
to some areas of PDTthese evaluations are powerful predictors of relationship
quality to siblings, we still need to examine to what extent justice evaluations are
linked to perceived relationship quality with parents. This avenue of research is
suggested by the possibility that parents can be easily held responsible for unjust
as well as for just treatment of their children and this should leadaccording to
attribution theory analysisto negative relationship quality in the case of unjust
treatment and to positive relationship quality in the case of just treatment (cf.
Weiner, 2001). Moreover, as these studies refer to PDT in childhood and adolescence, this raises the developmental issue of whether justice evaluations of PDT
remain important during adulthood as well, and if so, how they are linked to
relationship quality between adult siblings and between adult children and their
older parents. Links to relationship quality among adult siblings deserve consideration, because even in adulthood siblings continue to be important as interaction
partners, as sources of support in times of trouble, andmost likely in middle
adulthoodas partners in caring for aging parents (cf. Bedford, 1995; Cicirelli,
1996). In addition, links to relationship quality with older parents deserve particular attention because middle-aged adult children are among the most important
members in the social network of older persons (Ferring and Filipp, 1999). Considering that the quality of the parentchild relationship has been found to be
linked to support for older parents (Silverstein et al., 1995), one may ask whether
being in the role of a disfavored child reduces adult childrens willingness to
care for their aging parents, and whether being favored increases it. In our study,
we focus on middle-aged adult children, because theycompared to young adult
childrenare more likely to have parents who actually need support.

158

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

In contrast to studies on PDT in childhood and adolescence, which explicitly assess justice evaluations, adult studies have referred to justice evaluations
as hypothetical constructs to derive predictions about links between PDT and
possible outcomes (e.g., relationship quality to siblings and/or parents), which
were then tested empirically. Bedford (1992) analyzed how middle-aged adults
global memories of being treated worse than their siblings in childhood and adolescence are related to current relationship quality with their parents and referred
to perceived injustice as a possible mediating variable. From a social exchange
perspective, she argued that when parents violate norms of fairness early in the
childs life, perhaps adult children feel less duty-bound to sustain an affective bond
with their aging parents (p. S149). In line with this reasoning she found that, for
instance, childrens global memories of being treated worse were predictive of
poorer relationship quality with their parents. However, the study did not consider how memories of being treated better than ones sibling are associated with
parental relationship quality. Boll et al. (2003) focused on possible links between
middle-aged adult childrens current perceptions of both maternal and paternal
differential treatment in adulthood and their experienced relationship quality with
siblings and parents. These authors referred to perceived equity/inequity as a
possible mediating variable and derived predictions concerning links between
PDT and relationship quality from equity theory (Walster et al., 1973; cf. also
Sprecher and Schwartz, 1994). They argued that being disfavored in the sense
of receiving less positive treatment (e.g., recognition) or more negative treatment
(e.g., criticism) than ones sibling will be perceived as inequity if the disfavored
child, for instance, believes that both children deserve the same treatment because
of equal inputs. This, in turn, was assumed to lead to attempts to restore actual
equity, for example, by retaliating against the person who benefits from the inequity or is perceived to be the harm-doer. In other words, a deterioration of the
disfavored childs relationship quality with both the favored sibling and the parents
was predicted. On the other hand, being favored (in the sense of receiving more
positive or less negative treatment than ones sibling) was expected to be experienced as inequity, too, if the favored child believes that both siblings were entitled
to the same parental treatment due to equal inputs. This, in turn, was assumed
to instigate attempts to restore psychological equity, for instance, by devaluing
the disfavored siblings merits and by derogating him or her. Thus, being favored
was predicted to diminish the favored childs relationship quality with the sibling
not favored while improving the relationship quality with the parents, because the
psychological restoration of equity is likely to lead to the favored childs belief
that parents basically treat their children in an equitable manner.
In testing these predictions, the authors found curvilinear relations between
PDT and relationship quality with siblings that supported equity theory: Adult
childrens relationship quality was best when they perceived themselves to be
treated equally and deteriorated with increasing favoritism or disfavoritism. These

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

159

findings are compatible with the assumption that equal treatment is experienced as
just and that both kinds of unequal treatment (being disfavored and being favored)
are experienced as unjust. In contrast, evidence concerning the links between
PDT and relationship quality with parents only partially supported predictions.
As expected, relationship quality to ones parents deteriorated with increasing
disfavoritism and ameliorated when favoritism increased to a moderate degree.
Contrary to predictions, relationship quality to parents deteriorated with extreme
favoritism as well. Taken together, these findings indicate that being disfavored,
as well as being extremely favored were both perceived as unjust. Yet the question
remains whether either being equally treated or being moderately favored are
experienced as most just. In addition, one should keep in mind that evaluations
of PDT as just versus injust are normative evaluations which may be based on
different standards (cf. Montada, 2002). Justice evaluations can be, but need not be,
based on perceptions of equity versus inequity as conceptualized by Walster et al.
(1973). Even though the equity principle (considering ratios of inputs and outputs
of participants in a distribution) is regarded as an important justice principle,
the proponents of a multi-principle approach argue that equity is only one of
several principles that may underlie evaluations of distributive justice; the justice
evaluations may also be based, for example, on the equality principle or the need
principle (cf., Deutsch, 1975, 1985).
Beyond these ambiguities, studies that refer to justice evaluations as hypothetical constructs raise a more fundamental problem, even if findings are predominantly in line with the predictions of social exchange (Bedford, 1992) or equity
theory (Boll et al., 2003). If justice evaluations are not independently assessed one
cannot rule out an alternative mediation effect involving self-interest, a variable
that is alluded to in equity theory when postulating a human desire to maximize
ones outcomes (cf., Montada, 2002). Being disfavored can be perceived simply as
a violation of self-interest, and one can even argue that being disproportionately
favored may lead to perceived violations of self-interest as well. With increasing favoritism, the favored sibling may become increasingly aware of negative
outcomes for himself or herself, such as negative feelings and behaviors of the
disfavored sibling toward the favored one or the felt obligation to repay the advantages received from parents (cf., Boll et al., 2003). Thus, in order to provide
more supportive evidence for justice evaluations as mediating variables, these
evaluations should be explicitly assessed in future research.
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of justice evaluations
of PDT in middle adulthood in affecting relationship quality with adult siblings
and aging parents. In particular, we wanted to determine to what extent justice
evaluations mediate the effects of PDT on relationship quality and whether these
evaluations are more powerful predictors of relationship quality than PDT per se.
To perform a proper mediation analysis, we followed the guidelines proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986). Figure 1a represents an unmediated model describing

160

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Fig. 1. Models for the relations between PDT and relationship quality with sibling and parents:
(a) unmediated model, (b) model with justice evaluations as mediating variable.

the (curvilinear) relations between PDT and relationship quality with sibling and
parents (path c). Figure 1b represents a mediational model as suggested by equity
theory. In comparison to equal treatment, both being favored and being disfavored
were expected to be evaluated as less just (path a) which in turn should give rise
to negative relationship quality to sibling and parents (path b). To draw valid conclusions, we considered several dimensions of PDT (e.g., recognition, nurturance,
demands for assuming responsibility) performed by both parents across the entire
spectrum from disfavoritism to favoritism and assessed both positive and negative
aspects of experienced relationship quality. Because perceived justice of PDT in
adulthood is a rather neglected topic in research on (in)equality and (in)justice in
adult family life, our study was expected to lead to a more complete picture of
these intrafamilial phenomena.
METHOD
Sample
The data for the present analyses come from a longitudinal study of PDT in
middle adulthood. Respondents first participated in 2000 (T1; see Boll et al., 2003)
and a second time in 2002 (T2). The present analyses are all based on data collected
at T2 from a total of 709 German adult offspring (262 men, 447 women) between
the ages of 42 and 56 years (M = 46.76, SD = 3.03) who had either a mother
and/or father still living at the time of the survey and at least one sibling. When
completing the questionnaire, respondents were instructed to refer to one specific
living sibling (focus sibling), who was designated according to the respondents
membership in one of the following nine subsamples: sisterolder sister (n =
96; 13.5%), sisteryounger sister (n = 121; 17.1%), sisterolder brother (n = 88;
12.4%), sisteryounger brother (n = 135; 19.0%), brotherolder sister (n = 44;
6.2%), brotheryounger sister (n = 85; 12.0%), brotherolder brother (n = 49;

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

161

6.9%), brotheryounger brother (n = 79; 11.1%); 12 respondents were twins (n =

1.7%). When a respondent had several siblings within a category (e.g., older sisters,
older brothers, etc.), he or she was asked to refer to the sibling that was closest to
him or her in age.
The focus siblings were between 25 and 64 years of age (M = 45.68; SD =
6.08). The mean age difference between the respondents and their younger sibling
was 4.40 years (SD = 2.97, mode = 2), and between the respondents and their
older sibling was 4.58 years (SD = 3.25; mode = 2). In addition to the focus
sibling, respondents had between zero and eight siblings (M = 1.38; SD = 1.57).
The majority of the respondents were either married or involved in long-term
relationships (607; 85.6%); of the remaining respondents, 38 were single (5.4%),
51 were either separated or divorced (7.2%), and 12 were widowed (1.7%). With
regard to educational level and employment status, the following picture emerged:
219 respondents (30.9%) reported having completed the Volkschule/Hauptschule
(up to and including 9th grade), 250 respondents (35.3%) completed the Mittlere
Reife (up to and including 10th grade), and 73 (10.3%) completed the Abitur
(up to and including 13th grade, the highest school-leaving degree in Germany).
Additionally, a total of 165 respondents (23.3%) completed college education.
The largest portion of the sample was employed (599; 84.5%), 63 respondents
were homemakers (8.9%), and a small percentage were unemployed (29; 4.1%)
or retired (14; 2.0%).
With respect to the living status of the parents, 599 respondents indicated that
their mothers (84.5%) and 381 respondents indicated that their fathers (53.7%)
were alive, and 301 respondents (43.0%) reported that both parents were living.
Respondents with two living parents filled out the measures for both parents;
when one of the parents was no longer living, the respondents only completed the
measures for their living parent.
Measures
Perceived Parental Differential Treatment
These variables were assessed with the Questionnaire for the Assessment
of Currently Perceived Parental Differential Treatment (see Boll et al., 2003 for
more details). A respondent with two living parents rated various behaviors of
both the mother and the father indicating recognition, nurturance, and demands
for assuming filial responsibility (14 items for each parent). Two separate appraisals were required for each item on two 7-point Likert-type rating scales
ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). First, an assessment was made about how
often the parent behaved toward the respondent in the manner described and,
second, how often the parent behaved in such a manner toward the focus sibling,
and a difference variable was determined for each of the 14 items from both
appraisals. This variable contained information about the extent and direction of

162

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

maternal and paternal differential treatment. A positive value indicates that the
respondent receives more and a negative value indicates that he or she receives
less than the sibling in each behavioral domain; a score of zero represents equal
treatment. Based on prior factor analyses (see Boll et al., 2003), the resulting
14 difference variables for each parent separately were combined into three subscales. High internal consistencies and high testretest reliabilities over a time
span of 2 years (T1, T2) were found for the six scales: (1) Differential Maternal
Recognition (six items, e.g., mother shows us that she is proud of us, = 0.82,
rT1T2 = 0.70; M = 0.10, SD = 0.88), (2) Differential Paternal Recognition (six
items, e.g., father shows us that he is proud of us, = 0.87, rT1T2 = 0.84;
M = 0.14, SD = 0.96), (3) Differential Maternal Nurturance (five items, e.g.,
mother shows us her love, = 0.86, rT1T2 = 0.70; M = 0.13, SD = 0.85),
(4) Differential Paternal Nurturance (five items, e.g., father shows us his love,
= 0.86, rT1T2 = 0.78; M = 0.07, SD = 0.83), (5) Differential Maternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility (three items, e.g., mother expects us to
feel responsible for her, = 0.85, rT1T2 = 0.77; M = 0.22, SD = 1.41), and (6)
Differential Paternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility (three items, e.g.,
father expects us to feel responsible for him, = 0.88, rT1T2 = 0.74; M = 0.26,
SD = 1.25). When considering one and the same parent, the correlations between
parental recognition and parental nurturance were medium sized (for Differential
Maternal Recognition and Differential Maternal Nurturance, r = 0.48, and for
Differential Paternal Recognition and Differential Paternal Nurturance, r = 0.47;
ps < 0.01). Correlations between parental recognition and parental demand to
assume filial responsibility were very low (for Differential Maternal Recognition
and Differential Maternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility, r = 0.08,
p < 0.05, and for Differential Paternal Recognition and Differential Paternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility, r = 0.08, ns). Finally, only modest
correlations were found between parental nurturance and parental demand to assume filial responsibility (for Differential Maternal Nurturance and Differential
Maternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility, r = 0.39, and for Differential Paternal Nurturance and Differential Paternal Demand for Assuming Filial
Responsibility, r = 0.22, ps < 0.01). For the subsample of participants with two
living parents, the correlations between the scales of perceived maternal and paternal differential treatment were quite high (Differential Recognition: r = 0.68;
Differential Nurturance: r = 0.71; and Differential Demands for Assuming Filial
Responsibility: r = 0.85; ps < 0.01).
Justice Evaluations
Two scalesone for maternal and one for paternal differential treatment
were used to assess how respondents evaluate PDT with respect to justice. Each
scale included five items that covered the dimensions of PDT outlined earlier,

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

163

namely differential recognition, nurturance, and demand for assuming filial responsibility (e.g., Compared to my brother I regard the recognition that I receive
from my mother/ father as . . .). Respondents were asked rate each parents differential behavior on a seven-point Likert-type rating scale ranging from 3 (very unjust) to +3 (very just). Internal consistencies of the scales were good (Justice Evaluation of Differential Maternal Treatment: = 0.90, M = 0.84, SD = 1.12; Justice
Evaluation of Differential Paternal Treatment: = 0.90, M = 0.75, SD = 1.10).
For the subsample of participants with two living parents, the correlation between
justice evaluations of maternal and paternal differential treatment was quite high
(r = 0.76; p < 0.01).
Experienced Relationship Quality with Sibling and Parents
Emotional and behavioral measures were included for assessing the quality
of an individuals experienced relationship quality with his or her sibling as well
as with the mother and/or father (see Boll et al., 2003 for more details). Ratings
on three emotion checklists were used as indicators of the individuals emotional
relationship experiences with the respective family members. Respondents were
asked to rate on seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always)
how often they felt the given emotion when they thought about the person in
question (i.e., sibling, mother, father). For the purpose of the present study, only
two subscales that were identical for the maternal, paternal, and the sibling version
were employed. The Attachment/Closeness scale was composed of seven items
(e.g., deep affection) and was characterized by high internal consistencies and
high testretest reliabilities over a time span of 2 years (maternal version: = 0.95,
rT1T2 = 0.85; M = 4.56, SD = 1.35; paternal version: = 0.96, rT1T2 = 0.84;
M = 4.18, SD = 1.45; and sibling version: = 0.92, rT1T2 = 0.84; M = 3.54,
SD = 1.27). The Dislike scale consisted of two items (e.g., filled with hatred)
and had for all three target persons acceptable internal consistencies and rather
high testretest reliabilities over 2 years (maternal version: = 0.68, rT1T2 =
0.72; M = 1.60, SD = 0.93; paternal version: = 0.67, rT1T2 = 0.78; M = 1.64,
SD = 1.06; and sibling version: = 0.64, rT1T2 = 0.63; M = 1.43, SD = 0.86).
The correlations between the two scales were medium sized and negative for all
three versions: for mother, r = 0.50; for father, r = 0.47; and for sibling,
r = 0.38; ps < 0.01.
Three behavioral inventories were used to assess behavior-related aspects of
the respondents relationship with his or her sibling, mother, and/or father. The
inventories assessing mother-related and father-related behavior were identical
and consisted of 12 items each, whereas the inventory assessing sibling-related
behavior contained a total of 29 items. Respondents were asked to rate on sixpoint Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 6 (absolutely true)
the extent to which a certain item described the respondents behavior toward the

164

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

respective family member. For the purpose of the present study, only a subset of six
items that was identical in each version of the inventory was considered further to
construct two subscales. The first scale Willingness to Support (the person in question) consisted of two items in each version (e.g., I would just drop everything
in order to help my mother/father/sibling) and had high consistencies and quite
high testretest reliabilities (maternal version: = 0.85, rT1T2 = 0.76; M = 5.11,
SD = 1.82; paternal version: = 0.89, rT1T2 = 0.81; M = 4.91, SD = 1.18; and
sibling version: = 0.72, rT1T2 = 0.60; M = 4.30, SD = 1.31). The second scale
depicted Manifest Conflicts and consisted of four items in each version (e.g., we
fight a lot), and had very high internal consistencies and quite high testretest
reliabilities (maternal version: = 0.91, rT1T2 = 0.77; M = 2.52, SD = 1.09,
paternal version: = 0.93, rT1T2 = 0.74; M = 2.47, SD = 1.16, and sibling version: = 0.79, rT1T2 = 0.62; M = 2.34, SD = 1.02). The correlations between
the two scales were moderately negative for all three versions (mother: r = 0.23;
father: r = 0.23; sibling: r = 0.29; ps < 0.01).
Intercorrelations among the emotion- and behavior-related measures of relationship quality ranged from r = 0.50 to 0.64 (ps < 0.01) with respect to
the mother, from r = 0.47 to 0.67 (ps < 0.01) with respect to the father, and
from r = 0.38 to 0.50 (ps < 0.01) with respect to the sibling. With respect to
each family member, two criterion variables were combined into composites describing the valence of an individuals experienced relationship quality with that
family member. Thus, with regard to each target (mother, father, sibling), Attachment/Closeness and Willingness to Support (rs = 0.64, 0.67, and 0.50; ps < 0.01)
were combined into a measure called Positive Relationship Experiences. Dislike
and Manifest Conflicts (rs = 0.50, 0.49, and 0.39; ps < 0.01) were combined into
a measure called Negative Relationship Experiences. The correlations of positive
and negative measures were medium sized and negative (for mother: r = 0.48,
for father: r = 0.46; and for sibling: r = 0.37; ps < 0.01).
Strategy of Data Analysis
To analyze whether justice evaluations mediate the effects of PDT on relationship quality with siblings and parents, we used a strategy proposed by Baron and
Kenny (1986); see also Kenny et al. (1998). This strategy was applied separately
to each of the possible path models that can be constructed (1) from each of the
three scales for maternal and paternal differential treatment as initial variables, (2)
from justice evaluations as possible mediating variables, and (3) from each of the
two composite indices of positive and negative relationship quality to sibling and
to the parent as outcome variables (see Fig. 1a and b for the structure of the path
models). In step I, we tested whether there were significant relations between PDT
and relationship quality to sibling and parents (path c). Regression analyses were
conducted to predict each of the two composite measures of relationship quality to

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

165

sibling and parents from each dimension of PDT (including quadratic components
to test for curvilinear relations). In step II, we examined whether each dimension
of PDT significantly predicted the hypothesized mediating variables (path a), that
is, justice evaluations (again including quadratic components to test for curvilinear
relations). After inspecting the relations between PDT and the possible mediating
variables, we tested in step III whether the proposed mediators were still significant predictors of relationship quality to sibling and parents while controlling
for PDT (path b) and whether the effect of PDT on relationship quality (path c )
was reduced after the mediating variables were held constant. Following Baron
and Kenny (1986), four conditions must be met to establish justice evaluations as
mediating variables: (1) path c must be significant, (2) path a must be significant,
(3) path b must be significant, and (4) path c must be zero (nonsignificant) orif
significantat least smaller than path c.
RESULTS
Step I: Testing Relations Between Parental Differential Treatment
and Quality of Relationship with Sibling and Parents
A first sequence of regression analyses was performed to examine whether
there are significant relations between PDT and relationship quality to sibling
and parents which may be mediated by justice evaluations (path c in Fig. 1a).
To identify possible curvilinear relations between differential maternal treatment
and measures of the respondents experienced relationship quality, the differential
treatment scale under consideration was entered as the linear component in the first
step and, in the second step, as the quadratic component. To determine the form
of possible curvilinear functions, we computed simple slopes at various values of
PDT and tested whether they were significantly different from zero (cf. Aiken and
West, 1991, chapter 5).
Table I reports the coefficients of the linear component of the three PDT scales
in the linear model (first step) and the coefficients of the linear and quadratic components included in the curvilinear model (second step). With respect to both the
positive and negative measures of relationship quality with the sibling (see top
half of Table I), the quadratic component indicating curvilinear relations always
contributed significantly to the prediction beyond the linear component (recognition: R 2 = 0.061 and 0.045; nurturance: R 2 = 0.039 and 0.026; demand for
assuming filial responsibility: R 2 = 0.030 and 0.019). As the sign and the significance level of the simple slopes indicated, the relations between all differential
maternal treatment scales and both measures of relationship quality were U shaped
for the negative experiences and invertedly U shaped for the positive experiences
(see Fig. 2a and b for two prototypical examples). In other words, relationship
quality with the sibling was most positive and least negative whenaccording to

166

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Table I. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses to Predict an Individuals Experienced

Relationship Quality with Sibling and Mother from Differential Maternal Treatment
Criterion variable
Positive experiences
Predictor variable

Relationship quality with sibling

Recognitiona
First step: linear
0.064
Second step: linear
0.146
Quadratic
0.106
Nurturancea
First step: linear
0.030
Second step: linear
0.088
Quadratic
0.080
Demandsb
First step: linear
0.010
Second step: linear
0.048
Quadratic
0.039
Relationship quality with mother
Recognitiona
First step: linear
0.208
Second step: linear
0.135
Quadratic
0.094
Nurturancea
First step: linear
0.336
Second step: linear
0.236
Quadratic
0.068
Demandsb
First step: linear
0.098
Second step: linear
0.186
Quadratic
0.059

SE

Negative experiences
R2

SE

R2

0.049 0.054
0.003
0.039 0.037 0.044
0.002
0.049 0.123
0.014 0.037
0.016

0.017 0.257
0.064
0.068 0.013
0.220
0.047
0.050
0.025
0.001
0.139 0.037 0.152 0.023
0.055 0.073
0.067 0.041 0.073
0.016 0.220 0.040
0.049 0.012
0.178 0.049
0.032 0.013
0.000
0.034
0.063

0.009 0.189
0.030

0.038 0.024
0.004 0.026
0.023 0.007

0.066
0.004
0.007

0.147
0.023

0.045
0.189 0.036 0.320 0.037 0.337 0.114
0.045
0.123
0.288 0.038 0.303
0.016 0.246 0.092
0.041 0.013
0.124 0.128
0.045
0.297 0.088 0.253 0.039 0.259 0.067
0.049
0.208
0.169 0.043 0.173
0.015 0.201 0.120
0.057 0.013
0.194 0.097
0.029
0.137 0.019
0.032 0.026
0.052
0.003
0.031
0.260
0.026 0.027 0.042
0.008 0.308 0.098
0.039 0.007
0.233 0.048

Note. B coefficients, standard errors of B, weights, and R2 of the linear component in the linear
model (first step) and of the linear and the quadratic component in the curvilinear model (second step).
a N = 588.
b N = 587.
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

the participantboth siblings were treated equally by their mother. Relationship

quality became less positive and more negative with both perceived disfavoritism
and perceived favoritism.
As to the relationship quality with the mother, the significant regression
weights of the quadratic component (see bottom half of Table I) also indicated
that the curvilinear model explained significantly more of the variance of the
positive and the negative experiences than did the linear model (recognition:
R 2 = 0.056 and 0.014; nurturance: R 2 = 0.032 and 0.030; demand for assuming filial responsibility: R 2 = 0.079 and 0.045). Sign and significance level
of simple slopes of curvilinear functions revealed that the relations between the
variables only partially fit a U-shaped function, as most of the functions were not

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

167

Fig. 2. Curvilinear relations between differential maternal recognition and relationship quality with
sibling and mother: (a) positive experiences with the sibling, (b) negative experiences with the sibling,
(c) positive experiences with the mother, (d) negative experiences with the mother.

completely symmetric (see Fig. 2c and d for prototypical examples). In addition,

the maxima of the curves referring to the Positive Relationship Experiences with
the mother and the minima of the curves referring to the Negative Relationship
Experiences with the mother were somewhat displaced: Whereas relationship
quality with the sibling was most positive and least negative when the respondents perceived themselves to be equally treated, the most positive and least
negative relationship experiences with the mother emerged when the respondents
felt moderately favored. The relationship quality decreased when the respondents
perceived that they were increasingly disfavored. Extreme cases of favoritism

168

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

deteriorated relationship quality to different degrees, depending on the area of

differential maternal treatment. Quite a strong deterioration of positive (but not
of the negative) relationship experiences emerged when respondents perceived
much greater recognition in comparison to their sibling. Perceiving much more
nurturance and demand for assuming filial responsibility deteriorated relationship
quality less strongly, albeit significantly.
To test for possible curvilinear relationships between differential paternal
treatment and relationship quality with the sibling and the father, we utilized the
same strategy of data analysis as discussed earlier. Significant regression weights
of the quadratic components in Table II (top half) show that the curvilinear model
explained significantly more of the variance in both the positive and the negative measures of relationship quality with the sibling than did the linear model
Table II. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses to Predict an Individuals Experienced
Relationship Quality with Sibling and Father from Differential Paternal Treatment
Criterion variable
Positive experiences
Predictor variable

Relationship quality with sibling

Recognition
First step: linear
0.022
Second step: linear
0.139
Quadratic
0.115
Nurturance
First step: linear
0.181
Second step: linear
0.056
Quadratic
0.062
Demands
First step: linear
0.084
Second step: linear
0.010
Quadratic
0.044
Relationship quality with father
Recognition
First step: linear
0.311
Second step: linear
0.227
Quadratic
0.082
Nurturance
First step: linear
0.467
Second step: linear
0.385
Quadratic
0.041
Demands
First step: linear
0.128
Second step: linear
0.211
Quadratic
0.049

SE

Negative experiences
R2

0.061 0.019
0.000
0.062 0.120
0.020 0.314 0.089

SE

0.011 0.046
0.110 0.045
0.098 0.014

R2

0.013
0.000
0.128
0.358 0.115

0.068
0.138 0.019 0.161 0.051 0.166 0.027
0.079
0.043
0.090 0.059 0.093
0.021 0.183 0.043
0.035 0.015
0.139 0.042
0.046 0.096
0.009
0.052 0.011
0.014 0.182 0.035

0.104 0.034
0.053 0.038
0.030 0.010

0.159 0.025
0.081
0.167 0.047

0.061
0.260 0.067 0.331 0.053 0.314 0.099
0.063
0.190
0.258 0.055 0.245
0.020 0.216 0.109
0.072 0.017
0.215 0.140
0.067
0.345 0.119 0.306 0.061 0.257 0.066
0.078
0.285
0.231 0.071 0.194
0.020 0.116 0.129
0.037 0.018
0.120 0.077
0.048
0.141 0.020
0.068 0.042
0.085
0.007
0.053
0.232
0.015 0.047 0.019
0.015 0.196 0.050
0.049 0.013
0.222 0.046

Note. B coefficients, standard errors of B, weights, and R2 of the linear component in the linear
model (first step) and of the linear and the quadratic component in the curvilinear model (second step).
N = 360.
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

169

Fig. 3. Curvilinear relations between differential paternal recognition and relationship quality with
sibling and father: (a) positive experiences with the sibling, (b) negative experiences with the sibling,
(c) positive experiences with the father, (d) negative experiences with the father.

(recognition: R 2 = 0.089 and 0.115; nurturance: R 2 = 0.024 and 0.015; demand for assuming filial responsibility: R 2 = 0.026 and 0.022). Sign and significance level of simple slopes of the curvilinear functions revealed that the relations
between differential paternal treatment and relationship quality were U shaped for
the negative experiences and invertedly U shaped for the positive experiences in
the same manner as had been observed for the differential maternal treatment (see
Fig. 3a and b). Relationship quality was most positive and least negative when
respondents perceived themselves to be about equally treated in comparison to

170

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

their sibling. Relationship quality became less positive and more negative when
respondents perceived disfavoritism or favoritism from their fathers.
The significant regression weights of the quadratic component (see Table II,
bottom half) indicate that a curvilinear model also explained significantly more of
the variance in both the positive and the negative measure of relationship quality
with the father than did the linear model (recognition: R 2 = 0.042 and 0.041;
nurturance: R 2 = 0.010 and 0.011; demand for assuming filial responsibility:
R 2 = 0.030 and 0.039). Sign and significance level of simple slopes of curvilinear functions clearly indicated U-shaped relations between Differential Paternal
Recognition and Differential Paternal Demand for Assuming Filial Responsibility
on the one hand and at least one of the two measures of relationship quality to
the father on the other (see Fig. 3c and d for prototypical examples). Relationship quality was most positive and least negative when respondents perceived
slight favoritism. Relationship quality deteriorated with respondents perceptions
of being increasingly disfavored or favored. No clear-cut U-shaped relations were
found for Differential Paternal Nurturance. In comparison to the curvilinear functions found for relationship quality with the sibling, the maxima of the curves
referring to the Positive Relationship Experiences with the father and the minima of the curves referring to the Negative Relationship Experiences with the
father were slightly displaced. In most of the analyses, the optimum was reached
when respondents perceived themselves to be somewhat favored over their sibling.
Relationship quality deteriorated rapidly when respondents perceived themselves
disfavored, whereas relationship quality decreased slightly when respondents perceived strong favoritism with respect to recognition and demand for assuming
filial responsibility.
Step II: Testing Relations Between Parental Differential
Treatment and Justice Evaluations
A second sequence of analyses was conducted to examine whether there
are significant relations between PDT and the hypothesized mediator variables.
Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test for possible curvilinear
relations between PDT and justice evaluations. These analyses applied essentially
the same strategy as the analyses of step I and were conducted to test path a in the
model outlined earlier (see Fig. 1b).
Table III shows that the quadratic component of both maternal and paternal
differential treatment indicating curvilinear relations always contributed significantly to the prediction of justice evaluations of both maternal and paternal differential treatment beyond the linear component (recognition: R 2 = 0.043 and
0.062; nurturance: R 2 = 0.049 and 0.027; demand for assuming filial responsibility: R 2 = 0.064 and 0.063). The relations between all dimensions of PDT
and justice evaluations were invertedly U shaped as the signs and significance
levels of the simple slope of curvilinear functions revealed (see Fig. 4a and b for

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

171

Table III. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses to Predict an Individuals Justice Evaluations
of Differential Parental Treatment from Perceived Parental Differential Treatment
Criterion variable
Justice evaluation of
differential maternal treatmenta
Predictor variable
Recognition
First step: linear
Second step: linear
Quadratic
Nurturance
First step: linear
Second step: linear
Quadratic
Demands
First step: linear
Second step: linear
Quadratic

SE

R2

Justice evaluation of
differential paternal treatmentb
B

SE

R2

0.393 0.047
0.324 0.105
0.283 0.061
0.238 0.057
0.323 0.048
0.266
0.182 0.063
0.153
0.090 0.017 0.215 0.148 0.100 0.020 0.264 0.119
0.417 0.049
0.334 0.111
0.435 0.067
0.323 0.104
0.280 0.053
0.225
0.301 0.078
0.223
0.092 0.016 0.246 0.160 0.067 0.020 0.191 0.131
0.004 0.033
0.005
0.000
0.007 0.048 0.008
0.000
0.092 0.035
0.116
0.113 0.052
0.125
0.058 0.009 0.276 0.064 0.070 0.014 0.283 0.063

Note. B coefficients, standard errors of B, weights, and R2 of the linear component in the linear
model (first step) and of the linear and the quadratic component in the curvilinear model (second step).
a N = 588.
b N = 360.
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

prototypical examples). The differential treatment of both mother and father was
evaluated as most just when the respondents perceived themselves to be slightly
favored. PDT was evaluated as less just or even unjust when the respondents
perceived that they were increasingly disfavored. However, being extremely favored led to an evaluation of PDT as less just or even unjust, too (see Fig. 4a and
b). The total amount of variance explained was larger when justice evaluations
were predicted from differential parental recognition and from differential parental
nurturance (R2 from 0.119 to 0.160, ps < 0.001) than from differential parental
demand for assuming filial responsibility (R 2 = 0.064 and 0.063, ps < 0.01). It
should be noticeable that the form of the curvilinear relations between PDT and
justice evaluations resembles the form of the curvilinear relations between PDT
and Positive Relationship Experiences with the parents.

Step III: Testing Relations of Justice Evaluations and Parental Differential

Treatment to Quality of Relationship with Sibling and Parents
The results that emerged for step II clearly indicated that PDT was consistently related to justice evaluations, thus fulfilling one necessary condition for
mediating the effects of PDT on relationship quality to sibling and parents. In
a third sequence of regression analyses, we tested whether justice evaluations

172

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Fig. 4. Curvilinear relations between differential parental recognition and justice evaluations of PDT:
(a) maternal recognition, (b) paternal recognition.

fulfilled additional requirements of mediating variables: (1) whether these evaluations are significantly related to relationship quality to sibling and parents above
and beyond PDT, and (2) whether the curvilinear relations between PDT and relationship quality are reduced after justice evaluations are also entered into the
regression equation. In order to test paths b and c of the model outlined earlier
(see Fig. 1b), a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was performed
using Positive and Negative Relationship Experiences with sibling and parents as
criterion variables. In each analysis we enteredin addition to the linear and the
quadratic component of the differential treatment scale under considerationthe
justice evaluation of PDT. Sobel tests (Goodman I version) were conducted to
determine whether there were significant decreases in effect sizes after taking
the mediator variables into account (cf. Baron and Kenny, 1986; Preacher and
Leonardelli, 2003). Tables IV and V reveal that in all of the analyses, the justice
evaluations contributed significantly to the prediction of relationship quality to sibling and parents above and beyond the linear and the quadratic component of PDT.
The incremental variance for relationship quality with parents (from R 2 = 0.108
to 0.248) was much larger than the one for relationship quality with siblings (from
R 2 = 0.012 to 0.040). As the weights show, relationship quality to sibling
and parents improved the more PDT was evaluated as just and decreased the more
PDT was evaluated as unjust. Moreover, there was a significant reduction in the
weights of the quadratic component of PDT in almost all of the analyses indicating
a mediation of the curvilinear relations between PDT and relationship quality by
justice evaluations (see Tables IV and V; cf. also Tables I and II).

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

173

Table IV. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses to Predict an Individuals Experienced

Relationship Quality With Sibling and Mother from Differential Maternal Treatment and Justice
Evaluations
Criterion variable
Positive experiences
Predictor variable

Relationship quality with sibling

Recognitionb
Linear
0.214 0.181
Quadratic
0.087 0.211
Justice evaluation
0.212 0.217
b
Nurturance
Linear
0.143 0.117
Quadratic
0.062 0.171
Justice evaluation
0.194 0.199
Demandsc
Linear
0.032 0.041
Quadratic
0.028 0.138
Justice evaluation
0.181 0.186
Relationship quality with mother
Recognitionb
Linear
0.009 0.008
Quadratic
0.054 0.141
Justice evaluation
0.445 0.491
Nurturanceb
Linear
0.117 0.104
Quadratic
0.029 0.086
Justice evaluation
0.421 0.464
Demandsc
Linear
0.146 0.204
Quadratic
0.033 0.173
Justice evaluation
0.443 0.488

||a

Negative experiences
R2

||a

R2

0.058 0.003
0.050 0.056
0.040 0.002
0.046 0.064 0.058 0.188 0.032 0.047
0.104 0.112 0.152
0.067
0.044 0.001 0.042 0.046 0.027 0.023
0.049 0.040 0.041 0.148 0.030 0.049
0.073 0.089 0.121
0.061
0.022 0.000
0.015 0.026
0.019 0.004
0.051 0.030 0.016 0.102 0.045 0.023
0.062 0.120 0.164
0.043
0.115 0.036 0.192 0.203 0.100 0.114
0.105 0.092 0.014 0.042 0.082 0.128
0.297 0.297 0.379
0.250
0.104 0.088 0.082 0.084 0.089 0.067
0.115 0.120 0.028 0.097 0.097 0.097
0.302 0.310 0.396
0.229
0.056 0.019 0.005 0.008 0.034 0.003
0.135 0.098 0.019 0.115 0.118 0.048
0.321 0.336 0.430
0.221

Note. B coefficients, weights, change in weights after entering justice evaluation, and total R2 .
a In comparison to a model that includes only the linear and quadratic component of differential
maternal treatment (see Table I).
b N = 588.
c N = 587.
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

However, the amount of mediation (as indicated by the amount of weight

reduction) depended on whether relationship quality with the sibling or the parents
was considered. The amount of reduction in weights of the quadratic component
of PDT after inclusion of justice evaluations indicated that justice evaluations
mediated more strongly the effect of PDT on relationship quality to parents than the
effect of PDT on relationship quality to sibling. Another pattern of results indicated
that justice evaluations were more important in mediating the effect of differential
paternal treatment on relationship quality to father than in mediating the effect
of differential maternal treatment on relationship quality to mother. In five out of
six analyses, the weights of the quadratic component of paternal differential

174

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Table V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses to Predict an Individuals Experienced Relationship Quality with Sibling and Father from Differential Paternal Treatment and Justice Evaluations
Criterion variable
Positive experiences
Predictor variable

Relationship quality with sibling

Recognition
Linear
0.170 0.148
Quadratic
0.098 0.267
Justice evaluation
0.172 0.178
Nurturance
Linear
0.003 0.003
Quadratic
0.050 0.149
Justice evaluation
0.174 0.179
Demands
Linear
0.031 0.035
Quadratic
0.030 0.126
Justice evaluation
0.191 0.197
Relationship quality with father
Recognition
Linear
0.142 0.119
Quadratic
0.035 0.092
Justice evaluation
0.469 0.467
Nurturance
Linear
0.247 0.183
Quadratic
0.010 0.029
Justice evaluation
0.458 0.456
Demands
Linear
0.153 0.168
Quadratic
0.124 0.050
Justice evaluation
0.517 0.514

||a

Negative experiences
R2

||a

0.028 0.000
0.126 0.146 0.018
0.047 0.089 0.089 0.327 0.031
0.116 0.084 0.117

R2

0.000
0.115
0.120

0.040 0.019 0.062 0.064 0.029 0.027

0.034 0.043 0.029 0.115 0.024 0.042
0.071 0.093 0.129
0.056
0.024 0.009
0.066 0.100
0.019 0.025
0.056 0.035 0.022 0.123 0.044 0.047
0.072 0.113 0.156
0.070
0.071 0.067 0.202 0.192 0.053 0.099
0.124 0.109 0.041 0.123 0.092 0.140
0.301 0.309 0.350
0.248
0.102 0.119 0.129 0.108 0.086 0.066
0.087 0.129 0.015 0.047 0.073 0.077
0.310 0.340 0.384
0.205
0.064 0.020 0.026 0.032
0.013 0.007
0.146 0.050 0.023 0.106 0.116 0.046
0.298 0.362 0.410
0.203

Note. B coefficients, weights, change in weights after entering justice evaluation, and total R2 .
a In comparison to a model that includes only the linear and quadratic component of differential paternal
treatment (see Table II). N = 360.
p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

treatment in the prediction of relationship quality to the father (not the sibling)
were reduced to a degree not significantly different from zero (see Table V); this
indicates complete mediation. In contrast, weights of the quadratic component
of maternal differential treatment in the prediction of relationship quality to the
mother were only reduced below the threshold of significance in one out of six
analyses (see Table IV); this indicates only partial mediation.

Additional Analyses for Different Types of Sibling Dyads

In a final step, similar mediational analyses as described for the total sample
were also conducted with respect to subsamples of four types of sibling dyads;

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

175

these were generated by cross-classifying gender composition of (same vs. opposite sex) and age gap between siblings (small: 3 years vs. large: >3 years). Our
first goal was to test the extent to which curvilinear relations between PDT on the
one hand and justice evaluations and relationship quality on the other vary with
the structural features of the sibling dyad. Equity theory leads one to assume that
the link between PDT and relationship quality as well as justice evaluations should
be more pronounced if the inputs of both siblings are perceived as similar; this
should more likely occur if the siblings are of the same sex as compared to opposite sex or characterized by a small as opposed to a large age gap. With regard
to differential maternal treatment our findings provided partial support for our
hypotheses. As Table VI shows, the two subsamples characterized by a small age
gap provided the most consistent evidence for curvilinear relations between PDT
on the one hand and relationship quality and justice evaluations on the other. In
contrast, the analogous expectation for sibling dyads of the same as compared to
opposite sex was not supported. Regarding paternal differential treatment sibling
the dyads of the same vs. opposite sex and of a small vs. large age gap did not
differ remarkably in the proportion of significant curvilinear relations between
PDT and relationship quality as well as justice evaluations. In other words, these
findings did not support our hypotheses regarding the role of the two structural
features of the sibling dyad.
A second goal of our dyad-specific analyses was to explore the extent to which
justice evaluations of PDT are systematically related to relationship quality across
different types of sibling dyads characterized by the same vs. opposite sex and by
a small vs. large age gap. Very consistent findings emerged. Justice evaluations of
PDT turned out to be significant predictors of relationship quality to the parents
in all of the analyses and in most of the analyses they were even more powerful
predictors than perceived PDT itself. In the prediction of relationship quality to
the siblings, however, justice evaluations of differential maternal treatment were
found to be significant predictors of relationship quality in only some of the
analyses regarding each type of dyad. Justice evaluations of paternal differential
treatment emerged as a significant predictor of relationship quality in most analyses
concerning just one type of dyad (same sexsmall age gap).
DISCUSSION
Based on equity theory, the present study examined the extent to which justice
evaluations mediate the effects of currently perceived PDT in middle adulthood
on quality of relationship with adult siblings and older parents and whether justice evaluations of PDT are more powerful predictors of relationship quality than
perceived PDT itself. A model was constructed including justice evaluations as
mediating variables and tested in a three-step sequence of regression analyses
in line with suggestions made by Baron and Kenny (1986). Step I of our data

8/12
3/3
10/12
(4/6)
(6/6)

Effect (path)

Curvilinear effect of PDT on relationship quality (path c)

Curvilinear effect of PDT on justice evaluations (path a)
Effect of justice evaluations on relationship quality . . . (path b)
. . . to sibling
. . . to mother/father

7/12
3/3
11/12
(5/6)
(6/6)

PatDTb
5/12
1/3
9/12
(3/6)
(6/6)

MatDTc
1/12
0/3
6/12
(0/6)
(6/6)

PatDTd

Same sex/
large age gap

11/12
3/3
8/12
(2/6)
(6/6)

MatDTe
5/12
2/3
6/12
(0/6)
(6/6)

PatDTf

Opposite sex/
small age gap

7/12
3/3
8/12
(2/6)
(6/6)

MatDTg

9/12
3/3
6/12
(0/6)
(6/6)

PatDTh

Opposite sex/
large age gap

12/12
12/12
12/12
(6/6)
(6/6)

12/12
12/12
12/12
(6/6)
(6/6)

MatDTi PatDTj

Total sample

Note. Proportion of significant effects in relation to the total number of regression analyses. MatDT: maternal differential treatment. PatDT: paternal differential
treatment.
a n = 144.
b n = 87.
c n = 141.
d n = 84.
e n = 147/148.
f n = 86.
g n = 139.
h n = 92.
i N = 587/588.
j N = 360.

MatDTa

Same sex/
small age gap

Type of sibling dyad

Table VI. Proportion of Significant Effects in Mediational Analyses as a Function of Structural Features of the Sibling Dyad

176
Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

177

analyses for the total sample provided consistent evidence for curvilinear relations between PDT and relationship quality to sibling and parents. Relationship
quality with sibling was best whenaccording to the participants viewboth
siblings were treated equally, and it diminished with increasing favoritism or
disfavoritism. In addition, relationship quality with parents was best when respondents felt slightly favored, relationship quality deteriorated when respondents felt
disfavored, and worsened slightly when they felt extremely favored. These results
replicated findings from an earlier study by Boll et al. (2003) and provided evidence for systematic relations between perceived PDT and relationship quality in
the present data, thus justifying mediational analysis. In the regression analyses
of step II conducted in the total sample justice evaluations emerged as fulfilling
a first condition for being a mediator, because PDT significantly predicted justice
evaluations. Across all dimensions, both maternal and paternal differential treatment was evaluated as most just when the respondents regarded themselves as
slightly favored. PDT was evaluated as less just (or even as unjust) when respondents perceived that they were either disfavored or extremely favored. Step III
of our analyses revealed that in the total sample justice evaluations significantly
predicted relationship quality above and beyond PDT itself. After controlling for
justice evaluations, the curvilinear relations between PDT and relationship quality
to sibling and parents disappeared or decreased consistently. These findings
combined with those from step IIindicated that justice evaluations can in fact
be regarded as mediating variables. Specifically, the relation between both maternal and paternal differential treatment and relationship quality to sibling as well
as the relation between maternal differential treatment and relationship quality to
mother were partially mediated, whereas the relation between paternal differential
treatment and relationship quality to the father was completely mediated by justice
evaluations. Similar mediational analyses conducted for subsamples of sibling
dyads of the same vs. opposite sex and of a small vs. large age gap did not yield
such a large proportion of significant findings as did our analyses for the total
sample. This may be due in part to the smaller sizes of our subsamples (about
one-fourth of the total sample) and thus to reduced statistical power.
Prior studies that were based on social exchange perspectives (Bedford, 1992)
or on equity theory (Boll et al., 2003) and that referred to justice evaluations as
hypothetical constructs could not provide definitive support for justice evaluations
as mediators between PDT and relationship quality, because an alternative mediating path involving thwarted self-interest is conceivable (cf. Montada, 2002).
As the present study explicitly assessed justice evaluations that were tested in a
mediation analysis, it provides stronger empirical evidence that justice evaluations
actually mediate the effects of PDT on relationship quality. However, our findings
indicating partial (as opposed to complete) mediation point to the possibility that,
in addition to justice evaluations, other variables may also mediate the effects of
PDT on relationship quality to the sibling and mother. A likely hypothesis to be
tested in future research is that PDT can be perceived as both an injustice and a

178

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

thwarting of self-interest and that both kinds of perceptions mediate jointly the
effects of PDT on relationship quality. A fascinating issue is whether the relative
contribution of perceived injustice and of perceived thwarted self-interest depends
on the direction of PDT. In particular, one may expect that both variables are
about equally important in mediating the effect of perceived disfavoritism on relationship quality, whereas justice evaluations are more important than thwarted
self-interest in mediating the effects of perceived favoritism on relationship quality.
Testing models of multiple mediation would require that, in addition to measures
of perceived injustice, separate and discriminantly valid indicators of thwarted
self-interest be included in future studies.
In our mediational analysis, the amount of variance of justice evaluations
explained by PDT was significant, but not very large (up to 16% in the total sample).
Thus, the magnitude and direction of PDT should neither be equated with justice
evaluations of PDT nor be regarded as their only determinants. This leads one to
inquire about boundary conditions that may provide a closer link between both
variables, and about what other factors may contribute additively to the prediction
of perceived justice. Identifying relevant predictor and moderator variables seems
to be an important issue, as perceptions of justice, in turn, have emerged as
important predictors of relationship quality to sibling and parents (see later).
Additional analyses in subsamples of particular types of sibling dyads provided only partial support for the hypothesis that relations between PDT and
justice evaluations vary with structural features of the sibling dyad. In dyads
characterized by a small age gap between siblings, maternal (but not paternal) differential treatment was more consistently related to justice evaluations compared
to dyads with a large age gap. However, the analogous hypothesis for sibling
dyads of the same as compared to opposite sex was not supported. Thus, structural
features of the sibling dyads figure only to some extent as relevant inputs into
subjective calculations of equity within the family. What other similarities and
differences between siblings might figure more strongly and moderate the link
between PDT and justice evaluations? Referring to the literature on justifications
of PDT (Kowal and Kramer, 1997), it seems highly likely that other perceived
similarities and differences between siblings (e.g., with respect to needs, merits)
do moderate, because they are possible justifications for PDT. Moreover, dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice (e.g., Schmitt et al., 1995) can be expected
to amplify links between magnitude of PDT and justice evaluations. Finally, perceived justice of PDT might not only depend on distributive justice considerations
but also on appraisals of procedural justice (e.g., Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996),
which to our knowledge have not been considered with respect to PDT in prior
research. For instance, the perceived opportunities of self and sibling to influence parental decisions might contribute to the perceived fairness of the resulting
parental treatment.
Our analyses revealed that justice evaluations contributed significantly to the
prediction of relationship quality above and beyond the direction and magnitude

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

179

of PDT itself. The incremental variance was especially large with respect to
relationship quality with parents (1125% in the total sample), but still substantial
for relationship quality with siblings as well (14% in the total sample). With
respect to relationship quality to the sibling, justice evaluations of PDT contributed
about as much to the prediction as did the direction and magnitude of PDT.
However, regarding the relationship quality to the parents, the justice evaluations
of PDT contributed much more than did the direction and magnitude of PDT.
This finding was very robust, as it emerged in all the four types of sibling dyads
(i.e., regardless of gender composition or age gap). One likely explanation why
justice evaluations are much more powerful predictors of relationship quality to
parents than of relationship quality to siblings is that adult children may hold
their parents much more responsible for PDT than they may hold their siblings.
This hypothesis should be tested in future research using explicit measures of
attributions of responsibility.
Some implications can be derived from our study for the developmental issue
of whether justice evaluations of PDT remain important beyond childhood and
adolescence in predicting relationship quality to family members. In childhood and
adolescence, justice evaluations of PDT were systematically related to relationship
quality with sibling (cf. Kowal and Kramer, 1997), and were even stronger predictors than some, though not all, dimensions of PDT (McHale et al., 2000). The
present study of middle-aged adults revealed that justice evaluations of PDT remain important in later periods of life, too, and they seem to be even more important
because these evaluations contributed significantly to the prediction above and beyond PDT from both the mother and the father across all three dimensions of PDT.
Our finding that middle-aged adults justice evaluations of PDT are more
powerful predictors of relationship quality to parents than was PDT per se leads
us to wonder whether this applies to justice evaluations of PDT in childhood
and adolescence as well. Unfortunately, prior studies on the perceived justice of
PDT in these younger age groups did not take relationship quality with parents
as a criterion variable into account (cf. Kowal and Kramer, 1997; Kowal et al.,
2002; McHale et al., 2000). Thus, future studies on justice evaluations of PDT in
childhood and adolescence should also assess relationship quality to parents so
that also the developmental course of possible outcomes of PDT can be described
more completely allowing for a further examination of the reasons for possible
similarities and dissimilarities across the life-span.
Taken together, the present study demonstrates that beyond the division of
family work in marital relations (cf. Mikula, 1998), there is another kind of inequality in adult family relationships, namely PDT of middle-aged adult children,
in which perceived justice matters and has been shown to be systematically linked
with relationship quality to adult siblings and aging parents. Nevertheless, some
caveats are in order. Like most studies on PDT and its possible consequences,
the present study was cross-sectional and the data were correlational. Obviously,
one cannot draw conclusions regarding the direction of causality, because these

180

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

data cannot be used to determine whether perceived PDT and justice evaluations
have an effect on relationship quality, whether there is an effect of relationship
quality on perceived PDT and justice evaluations, or whether some third variable
has an effect on both. This seems to be even more important, because it has been
shown in a seemingly different though structurally similar context (i.e., disputes
about distributions of personal and business outcomes) that the relationship quality
between participants may strongly influence reactions toward being favored (cf.
Loewenstein et al., 1989). Future research should use longitudinal designs and
cross-lagged path analyses to clarify the directions of causality between the relevant variables. One should also notice that our study considered the perspective of
only one sibling within each family. Future studies should consider the perspective of other siblings and the parents as well to examine the extent to which there
are converging vs. diverging perceptions of PDT and justice evaluations within
families.
Broadening the perspective on justice in the family and looking for other
inequalities involving aging parents and adult siblings draws attention to the
distribution of caring for older parents and to the distribution of parental inheritance
among children. Even though both phenomena have been regarded as a likely
matter of justice (e.g., Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2003; Drake and Lawrence, 2000)
and as a possible source of sibling conflict (Kemp and Hunt, 2001; Strawbridge
and Wallhagen, 1991), yet to be analyzed are the extent to which perceptions of
justice actually mediate such possible outcomes for relationship quality.
Considering the various inequalities and possible injustices involving adult
siblings and their older parents leads us to ask how these various phenomena
might combine to determine the relationship quality of the family members. An
interesting possibility deserving attention is that the different inequalities interact
in shaping justice evaluations which, in turn, have an effect on relationship quality.
A specific hypothesis is that the link between PDT in middle adulthood and justice
evaluations is buffered if the disfavored sibling believes that he or she has provided
less care for the parents than the favored sibling has. Another hypothesis a waiting
empirical validation is that being disfavored with regard to parental inheritance is
more likely to be perceived as just if the disadvantaged child assumes that he or she
was favored during the lifetime of their parents. Following these lines of inquiry
will provide justice and family researchers with a more complete picture of the inequalities and injustices in sibling and parentchild relationships in adulthood and
will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of fairness in the family.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of a research project entitled Parental Differential Treatment in Middle Adulthood: Dyadic and Longitudinal Analyses which was
supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; FE 502/23). We thank Holger Spieles for his extremely helpful assistance in this project. We

Justice Evaluations as Mediators

181

also thank Lisa Trierweiler for her very helpful support in preparing the English
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Aldous, J., Klaus, E., and Klein, D. M. (1985). The understanding heart: Aging parents and their
favorite children. Child Dev. 56: 303316.
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51:
11731182.
Bedford, V. H. (1992). Memories of parental favoritism and the quality of parentchild ties in adulthood.
J. Gerontol. Soc. Sci. 47: S149S155.
Bedford, V. H. (1995). Sibling relationships in middle and old age. In Blieszner, R., and Bedford, V. H.
(eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Family, Greenwood Press, Westport, CO, pp. 201222.
Boll, T., Ferring, D., and Filipp, S.-H. (2001). Struktur und Folgen elterlicher Ungleichbehandlung
von Geschwistern: Forschungsstand und -desiderate [Structure and consequences of parental differential treatment of siblings: State of research and desiderata]. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie 33: 195203.
Boll, T., Ferring, D., and Filipp, S.-H. (2002). Perceived Parental Differential Treatment of Siblings in
Middle Adulthood, Unpublished manuscript.
Boll, T., Ferring, D., and Filipp, S.-H. (2003). Perceived parental differential treatment in middle
adulthood: Curvilinear relations with individuals experienced relationship quality to sibling and
parents. J. Fam. Psychol. 17: 472487.
Brockner, J., and Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychol. Bull. 120: 189208.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1992). Family Caregiving: Autonomous and Paternalistic Decision Making, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1996). Sibling relationships in middle and old age. In Brody, G. H. (ed.), Sibling
Relationships: Their Causes and Consequences. Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology,
Vol. 10, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 4773.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis
of distributive justice? J. Soc. Iss. 31: 137149.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective, Yale University Press,
New Heaven, CT.
Drake, D. G., and Lawrence, J. A. (2000). Equality and distributions of inheritance in families. Soc.
Justice Res. 13: 271290.
Ferring, D., Boll, T., and Filipp, S.-H. (2003). Elterliche Ungleichbehandlung in Kindheit und Jugend
aus der Perspektive des mittleren Erwachsenenalters [Parental differential treatment in childhood
and adolescence from the perspective of middle adulthood]. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie 35: 8397.
Ferring, D., and Filipp, S.-H. (1999). Soziale Netze im Alter: Selektivitat in der Netzwerkgestaltung, wahrgenommene Qualitat der Sozialbeziehungen und Affekt [Social networks in old age:
Socioemotional selectivity, perceived quality of social interactions, and affect]. Zeitschrift fur
Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie 31: 127137.
Ihinger, M. (1975). The referee role and norms of equity: A contribution toward a theory of sibling
conflict. J. Marr. Fam. 37: 515524.
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Neal, M. B., Ha, J.-H., and Hammer, L. B. (2003). Redressing inequity in parent
care among siblings. J. Marr. Fam. 65: 201212.
Kemp, S., and Hunt, F. (2001). Exploring the psychology of inheritances. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie 32: 171179.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., and Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In Gilbert,
D. T., Fiske, S. T., and Linzey, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill,
Boston, MA, Vol. 1, pp. 233265.

182

Boll, Ferring, and Filipp

Kowal, A., and Kramer, L. (1997). Childrens understanding of parental differential treatment. Child
Dev. 68: 113126.
Kowal, A., Kramer, L., Krull, J. L., and Crick, N. R. (2002). Childrens perceptions of the fairness of
parental preferential treatment and their socioemotional well-being. J. Fam. Psychol. 16: 297306.
Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., and Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making
in interpersonal context. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57: 426441.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., and Crouter, A. C. (2000). When
does parents differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Soc. Dev. 9: 149172.
Mikula, G. (1998). Division of household labor and perceived justice: A growing field of research.
Soc. Justice Res. 11: 215241.
Montada, L. (2002). Justice to the justice motive. In Ross, M., and Miller, D. T. (eds.), The Justice
Motive in Everyday Life, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 4162.
Preacher, K. J., and Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the Sobel Test. An Interactive Calculation
Tool for Mediation Tests, Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/preacher/sobel/sobel.htm.
Schmitt, M. J., Neumann, R., and Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice.
Soc. Justice Res. 8: 385407.
Silverstein, M., Parrott, T. M., and Bengtson, V. L. (1995). Factors that predispose middle-aged sons
and daughters to provide social support to older parents. J. Marr. Fam. 57: 465475.
Sprecher, S., and Schwartz, P. (1994). Equity and balance in the exchange of contributions in close
relationships. In Lerner, M. J., and Mikula, G. (eds.), Entitlement and the Affectional Bond: Justice
in Close Relationships, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1141.
Strawbridge, W. J., and Wallhagen, M. I. (1991). Impact of family conflict on adult child caregivers.
Gerontology 31: 770777.
Suitor, J. J., and Pillemer, K. (2000). Did mom really love you best? Developmental histories, status
transitions, and parental favoritism in later life families. Motiv. Emot. 24: 105120.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., and Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 25: 151176.
Weiner, B. (2001). Responsibility for social transgressions: An attributional analysis. In Malle, B. F.,
Moses, L. J., and Baldwin, D. A. (eds.), Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social
Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 331344.