This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 16:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Family Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfsc20

Twin relationships: A comparison across monozygotic

twins, dizygotic twins, and nontwin siblings in early
childhood
a a a
Keren Fortuna , Ira Goldner & Ariel Knafo
a
Department of Psychology , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Israel
Published online: 04 May 2011.

To cite this article: Keren Fortuna , Ira Goldner & Ariel Knafo (2010) Twin relationships: A comparison across
monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and nontwin siblings in early childhood, Family Science, 1:3-4, 205-211, DOI:
10.1080/19424620.2010.569367

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2010.569367

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Family Science
Vol. 1, Nos. 34, JuneOctober 2010, 205211

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Twin relationships: A comparison across monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and nontwin
siblings in early childhood
Keren Fortuna*, Ira Goldner and Ariel Knafo
Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
(Received 16 November 2010; final version received 4 March 2011)

Twin relationships remain understudied despite the increasing prevalence of twinning and the unique influence it entails
for individual development and family functioning. The current study assessed closeness, conflict, dependence, and rivalry
within 1281 pairs of 3-year-old twins via maternal reports. Relationship quality was compared based on the twins zygosity
and dyadic sex-composition. As expected, monozygotic (genetically identical) twins were perceived as closer and more
co-twin dependent relative to dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Same-sex twins were reported to have lower dependence and higher
levels of conflict and rivalry than opposite-sex dyads. As compared with a matched sample of 84 nontwin siblings, dizygotic
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014

twins were described as closer and more co-dependent. Findings emphasize the need to consider the special nature of the
twin relationship and lend support for theories regarding the effects of genetic similarity and gender in shaping interpersonal
relationships.
Keywords: twins; twin relationships; sibling relationships; LIST

Starting from the womb, twins intimately develop side
by side, and are constantly present for mutual compari-
son and companionship (Castiello et al., 2010). Given the
exclusive nature of their genetic relatedness, twins have
been studied extensively in the context of behavior genetic
research (Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001).
However, systematic research focusing on twin relation-
ships as a distinct type of sibling relationship and a unique
social context is relatively scarce. Research on nontwin sib-
lings clearly shows that siblings are an integral part of indi-
viduals lives, and a key resource in social and emotional
development (Dunn, 2007). However, despite the impor-
tance of sibling relationships, very little is known about
the more unique twin relationship. Most of the knowledge
on this topic is based on rather small samples that despite
providing detailed accounts and fascinating personal sto-
ries (e.g., Ainslie, 1985) may not be representative of the
twin population. Thus, there is a need for additional, large-
scale, research on the development of individuals growing
up as twins, the bond between them, and ways in which the
presence of twins influences family functioning.
Multiple births are becoming increasingly common,
such that in certain countries one of 33 children is a
twin or a higher multiple (Hay & Preedy, 2006). In the
current study, we were interested in studying the rela-
tionships among twins and ways in which relationship
functioning may vary depending on twins zygosity (i.e.,
degree of genetic similarity) and sex-composition. Toward
this end, we focused on the relationships of 1281 pairs
of monozygotic (MZ; genetically identical) and dizygotic
(DZ; fraternal) twins, as described by their mothers at
age 3. By systematically comparing the quality of twins
relationships we hope to shed light on commonly held con-
victions regarding the nature of the twin bond which are
likely to guide caregivers behaviors and decisions with
regards to their twins (e.g., whether or not to separate them
in school).
Most of what is known about sibling relationships is
derived from families with nontwin children. Does it gen-
eralize to families with twins? Some believe that twinship
constitutes a specific developmental context which alters
the usual circumstances governing development (Ainslie,
1985, p. 163). Yet it is not clear whether twins lives differ
considerably from those of the more common sibling type
(Although see Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, & Plomin,
2000 for twin-sibling comparisons during adolescence).
For example, do twins tend to more highly depend on each
other, fight more frequently, and rival for parental atten-
tion? To address these questions, we have also sampled 84
nontwin sibling pairs (1 to 5 years apart) and compared
them to a matched twin sample.
For many individuals their sibling relationships are
their most enduring relationships, lasting from childhood
through old age. During the early years, individuals spend
much of their free time with their siblings, often more than
with parents or peers (McHale & Crouter, 1996). Due to

*Corresponding author. Email: keren.fortuna@mail.huji.ac.il

ISSN 1942-4620 print/ISSN 1942-4639 online

2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19424620.2010.569367
http://www.informaworld.com
 206 K. Fortuna et al.
such frequency of interaction, combined with the built-in
need to compete for shared resources (e.g., parents, mate-
rial possessions) and perhaps a degree of social tolerance
for free expression of positive as well as negative feel-
ings, sibling interactions are often emotionally loaded and
uninhibited (Dunn, Stocker, & Plomin, 1990). Sibling rela-
tionship quality varies markedly across dyads, and such
differences have been shown to relate to a variety of
developmental outcomes. Conflict (in moderation) within
the sibling relationship provides a context for emotional
expression, understanding others feelings, and learning
to resolve differences (Dunn, 1991, 2007). In this sense,
siblings act as socializing agents promoting the develop-
ment of theory of mind, perspective taking, and empathy
(Cutting & Dunn, 2006). That said, elevated levels of hos-
tility and coercion between siblings can serve as training
grounds for antisocial behaviors (Bank, Patterson, & Reid,
1996).
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
Twins, like other siblings, vary from extreme close-
ness to excessive conflict (Ainslie, 1985; Schave & Ciriello,
1983). Being of the same age and constantly present makes
the co-twin a significant person in ones life, for better and
for worse. For some, the ever-present twin comes to serve
a comforting, soothing function, thus fostering prolonged
mutual dependence (Ainslie, 1985; Penninkilampi-Kerola,
Moilanen, & Kaprio, 2005). Twins often describe strong
empathic reactions toward their co-twins and fear of los-
ing them. At an extreme, twin co-dependence restricts
their ability to develop individual identities (Hay & Preedy,
2006). An interesting phenomenon identified in twins is
the use of a secret language (Rutter & Redshaw, 1991),
perhaps developing when the bond is especially tight.
Rivalry/competition is another significant aspect of
sibling relationships, which may be especially salient in
twins, given that the same-age sibling is always present for
direct comparison (Hay & Preedy, 2006), and given lim-
ited resources (e.g., parental attention) available for them
to share from the womb onward. Rivalry may be fueled by
parents and others tendency to inadvertently (but almost
inevitably) compare the two, who are developing side by
side, which can push twins to compete with each other.
Zygosity
A major question that arises when studying twin rela-
tionships involves whether considerable differences exist
among the two twin types (MZ and DZ). Some twin
researchers emphasize the uniqueness of having a geneti-
cally identical twin (Segal, 1999), a connection described
as the closest tie between two individuals (Burlingham,
1945). Though empirical studies of twins relationships
are in short supply, some support for this view is pro-
vided. For example, the existence of an exclusive language
was found to be more common among MZ than DZ pairs
(Mittler, 1970); as compared to DZ twins, adolescents
co-twin dependence was more prevalent among MZ pairs
(Penninkilampi-Kerola et al., 2005), adult MZ twins were
more likely to be attached to their co-twin (Tancredy &
Fraley, 2006), and MZ twins showed higher grief inten-
sity to losing their twin (Segal, Wilson, Bouchard, & Gitlin,
1995). In a Prisoners Dilemma game between twins, MZ
pairs were significantly more altruistic toward each other
(yet not toward an unknown child; Segal, Connelly, &
Topoloski, 1996), and less competitive than their DZ twin
counterparts (Segal & Herschberger, 1999). Similarly, in
a puzzle completion task (Segal, 1984), MZ twins were
more cooperative and likely to complete the task in contrast
to higher competitiveness (e.g., aggression, monopolizing)
that took place among DZ pairs.
Given inherent differences between MZ and DZ twins
in their level of genetic overlap, evolutionary-driven bio-
logical effects have been suggested as driving zygosity
differences in twins relationships. One such explanation
is derived from Kin Selection Theory (Hamilton, 1964),
which suggests that one would be more likely to act altruis-
tically toward a close relative with whom he or she shares
genes as a way to increase ones inclusive fitness (i.e., the
survival and reproduction of ones genes). Hence, higher
genetic similarity should be related to higher cooperation
and lower competition. Based on this evolutionary logic,
MZ twins, who share 100% of their DNA sequence, are
expected to have a stronger incentive to cooperate as com-
pared to DZ twins, who share on average about 50% of
their genes. This is because genetically speaking, helping
ones identical twin is like helping oneself (Segal, 1999,
p. 101). A more proximal explanation is that character sim-
ilarities between MZ twins (Plomin et al., 2001), bringing
about more shared interests and abilities, make it easier for
them to get along.
It is important to note that MZ twins closeness was not
found to mean complete lack of mutual antagonism (Segal,
1984), and despite observed differences in cooperation
and competitiveness, previous reports of twin relationships
did not identify MZ-DZ differences in amount of fighting
(Segal, 1999). Thus, while previous evidence leads to the
hypothesis that MZ twins have a closer, more dependent,
and less competitive relationship than DZ twins, zygosity
differences in conflict intensity are less clear. In this study
we provide the largest to-date investigation of these aspects
of twin relationships.
Twins and other siblings
What about twin versus nontwin sibling relationships? The
presence of a same-age sibling, and circumstances specific
to twins early lives, significantly alter their environment
as compared with that of nontwin siblings (Ainslie, 1985).
To name a few, twins need to deal with a sibling who is
similar in terms of developmental status rather than older
or younger; there may be a need to more directly compete

for attention as parents divide their time between two chil-
dren with compatible needs (Rutter & Redshaw, 1991),
heightening awareness of parental differential treatment.
Different-age siblings, on the other hand, are more likely
to seek out different forms of parental attention, and accept
differential treatment based on their relative ages. Some
have indeed observed heightened competition among twins
relative to siblings, most often linked to parental attention
(Lytton, 1980). Then again, the fact that limited one-on-one
parental attention is a given right from the start for twins,
while not always so for nontwin siblings, may keep twin
rivalry at bay.
On a more positive note, twins enjoy the availability
of a same-age playmate, are likely to have more common
interests at each developmental point, and thus to develop
more intimate bonds relative to siblings who differ in age
and developmental stage. Adult twins are found to be more
likely than nontwins to regard their sibling as an attachment
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
figure, suggesting that twin relationships serve a nurturing
function that is non-typical among nontwins (Tancredy &
Fraley, 2006). Many open questions remain regarding twin-
nontwin differences, especially early in life. In this study,
we examine some of these questions by empirically com-
paring pairs of DZ twins and nontwin siblings on several
relationship indicators.
Dyadic sex-composition
Few studies have examined the potential effects of
dyadic sex-composition on twins relationship function-
ing. Lemery and Goldsmith (2001) found twin boys to be
higher on conflict, whereas girls were higher on initiating
cooperation. Moreover, girl-only DZ pairs were higher on
cooperation relative to other twin pairs. Self-reported co-
twin dependency was more prevalent among girls, both
in same and opposite-sex dyads (Penninkilampi-Kerola
et al., 2005). Akerman and Suurvee (2003) have identified
exaggerated levels of co-dependence (symbiotic relation-
ships) among adolescent female twins (especially MZ), but
not in male-only dyads. The present study aimed to iden-
tify potential early-emerging effects of sex-constellation
on twins relationships by examining differences between
same versus opposite-sex dyads, and between male and
female pairs.
The current study
In order to understand the characteristics of twin relation-
ships in early childhood we studied the relationships of
preschool twin dyads, with the largest twin sample to date
to address this issue. The twin relationship questionnaire
employed in this study asked mothers to report on levels of
inter-twin conflict, closeness, dependence, and rivalry in
order to test ways in which relationships vary as a function
of zygosity, sibling type (i.e., DZ twins vs. nontwins),
and sex-composition (i.e., same vs. opposite-sex, boys vs.
girls).
Family Science 207
The hypotheses were: (1) MZ twins were expected to
be higher on ratings of closeness and co-dependence, and
lower on rivalry as compared to DZ twin pairs, yet no
zygosity differences were anticipated for conflict levels.
(2) We hypothesized that DZ twins would have higher
closeness and co-dependence ratings relative to nontwin
siblings. We did not postulate a clear hypothesis regarding
conflict and rivalry differences given somewhat conflict-
ing expectations and scarcity of previous research. (3)
Twin girl dyads were hypothesized to have higher levels of
closeness/dependence, and lower levels of conflict/rivalry
than boy dyads.
Method
Participants
Twins. Twin pairs (N = 1337) participated in a longitudi-
nal study of twins (Knafo, 2006). Contact details for twins
families were provided by the local government office,
based on information about all mothers giving birth to more
than one child within 24 hours during the years 20042005.
Families were contacted with mail surveys at the time of the
twins third birthday. The surveys asked mothers to report
about their twins characteristics and relationship with each
other (in addition to questions which are beyond the focus
of this report).
Zygosity was determined by the Zygosity Question-
naire for Young Twins (Goldsmith, 1991) using an algo-
rithm which has been shown to be over 95% accurate when
compared to DNA testing (Price et al., 2000). This zygos-
ity questionnaire contains questions regarding genetically
determined physical differences between the twins (e.g.,
height, weight, hair and eye color, timing of teeth eruption),
likelihood of confusion between the twins by family mem-
bers, friends, and caretakers, and medical information (e.g.,
blood type, possible medical reasons for differences). In
addition, mothers are also asked about their opinion regard-
ing the twins zygosity (i.e., whether they think the twins
are identical or fraternal), and whether they were ever given
any medical opinion regarding their twins zygosity. These
two questions were not included in the zygosity algorithm.
Twin pairs for which we could not determine zygosity
(N = 27), or for whom more than three items on the
relationship questionnaire were missing (N = 29) were
excluded from the analyses. The final twin sample con-
sisted of 272 MZ pairs and 1009 DZ pairs; mean age 37.16
months (SD = 2.62).
Nontwin siblings. Mothers whose child attended the
same daycare as one of the twins were asked to report
about the relationship between their 3-year-old child (the
target child) and his/her closest-age sibling. Mothers of 93
sibling pairs returned the survey. We excluded seven pairs
for whom more than three questionnaire items were miss-
ing and two pairs because the non-target siblings were too
old (22 years) or too young (1 month). The final sample
consisted of 84 pairs. The target childrens mean age was
41.29 months (SD = 4.17), and the mean age-difference
 208 K. Fortuna et al.
between siblings was 33.65 months (SD = 14.99). The tar-
get child was matched to a DZ twin according to the childs
age, childs sex, mothers country of birth, mothers edu-
cation, number of siblings, and religiosity. The matched
sub-sample of DZ pairs was similar to the full DZ sam-
ple on all relationship variables, though they were slightly
older (M = 40.3, SD = 4.05 and M = 36.87, SD = 2.26,
respectively).
Measures
We constructed the Twin Relationship Questionnaire by
adopting items from several questionnaires assessing sib-
ling relationships (Volling & Blandon, 2005; Stocker,
Dunn, & Plomin, 1989 described in Dunn, Deater-Deckard,
& Pickering, 1999) and adding items inspired by descrip-
tions of twin relationships in Hay and Preedy (2006). The
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
items (see Figure 1) were selected with the intention of cap-
turing behaviors indicating closeness, conflict, dependence,
and rivalry between twins. Mothers were asked to rate the
degree to which each statement is characteristic of each of
her twins, using a scale of 1 = not characteristic at all to
5 = very characteristic.
As we wished to capture the relationship as pertaining
to both twins, mean scores were computed between moth-
ers reports of the twins behaviors. All the correlations
between twin A and B were high (r > .64) and significant
(p < .001; mean r = .74), with the exception of one item
(teases and provokes the other twin; r = .47), which
was dropped from subsequent analyses. For comparison
purposes, mothers reports regarding nontwin siblings
relationships were also averaged across the target child and
Figure 1. Multidimensional scaling of the twin relationship questionnaire items.
his/her sibling, though correlations were weaker (mean
r = .55).
Multidimensional scaling was used to analyze the
structure of the twin relationship questionnaire. Analyses
were conducted on standardized values using the ALSCAL
routine (Figure 1; stress = .08). The items clearly mapped
on four constructs conflict, closeness, dependence, and
rivalry. Results were further confirmed by a Principal Com-
ponent Factor Analysis. Items within each factor were
averaged. Internal reliabilities were satisfactory; Cron-
bachs alphas: closeness .74, conflict .81, dependence .78,
and rivalry .73.
Results
Twin relationships by zygosity
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of the four
relationship dimensions by twin and sibling types. First, we
examined whether twins relationship quality varied across
zygosity groups. In order to unconfound possible effects of
sex-composition, MZ twins were compared with same-sex
DZ (SSDZ) twins only. MZ pairs had significantly higher
levels of closeness, t(777) = 5.36, p < .001 (d = .38) and
dependence, t(777) = 5.18, p < .001 (d = .37) as compared
with DZ pairs. The groups did not significantly differ on
conflict and rivalry levels.
These results suggest an effect for zygosity on twin
relationship quality. An alternative explanation was tested.
It is possible that the observed differences between MZ
and DZ twins were due to tendencies of mothers of MZ
pairs to inflate closeness and dependence among their twins
relative to mothers of DZ twins. In order to address this
 Family Science 209

issue, we relied on motherss answer to the question about
whether they thought that their twins were identical or
fraternal. Parents are sometimes mistakenly informed by
hospital personnel that their twins are fraternal because
two placentas were present (which can occur with either
twin type). Also, some parents believe that their twins
are fraternal simply because they notice phenotypic (i.e.,
behavioral) differences (Goldsmith, 1991). Therefore, we
did not use their answers to classify the twins but as a
way to control for mothers knowledge of their twins true
zygosity. Indeed, mothers of 94 MZ pairs (36% of MZ
twins) reported thinking that their twins were non-identical.
This variation allowed us to compare between the mother-
reported relationship characteristics of MZ twins whose
mothers correctly said they were identical to those whose
mothers mistaken for DZ twins. There were no significant
differences between the groups on any of the relationship
dimensions, indicating that zygosity differences were likely
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
closeness and dependence. Interestingly, close-age sib-
lings were also somewhat [t(106) = 1.87, p < .07, d = .36]
higher on rivalry (M = 3.26, SD = .94) than their matched
twins (M = 2.93, SD = .86).
Twin relationships by sex
Finally, we investigated the effects of sex-composition on
twins relationships. Initially, SSDZ versus opposite-sex
DZ dyads were compared (MZ twins were not included
in these analysis). SSDZ twins had lower dependence
levels, t(1007) = 1.98, p < .05 (d = .12), higher rivalry,
t(1007) = 1.98, p < .05, (d = .12) and conflict [a marginally
significant effect, t(1007) = 1.66, p < .10 (d = .10)].
The influence of sex was further examined by
comparing same-sex male versus female dyads, sepa-
rately for MZ and DZ twins. SSDZ girl dyads were
described as having higher levels of closeness than SSDZ

not due to maternal reporting biases.
Relationships by sibling type
We next compared twin relationships to those of nontwin
siblings. Only DZ twins were selected for this comparison
to unconfound sibling-type from zygosity. As compared
with matched nontwin siblings, DZ twins had significantly
higher levels of closeness, t(166) = 4.25, p < .001 (d = .66)
and dependence, t(166) = 2.63, p < .01 (d = .41). Twins
and siblings did not significantly differ on levels of conflict
and rivalry (Table 1).
To test whether larger age-differences between sib-
lings drive these effects we first examined whether age-
difference related to relationship quality. Age-difference
between siblings was not associated with closeness, con-
flict, and dependence, though it was marginally associated
with less rivalry (r = -.21, p < .06). We further com-
pared the matched twins to a sub-sample of 54 sibling
pairs whose age-difference was relatively small (up to 34
months the mean age-difference of the 84 sibling pairs;
M = 24.48, SD = 5.77), and may therefore be thought to
most closely resemble twins. Twins were still higher on
boy pairs, t(505) = 2.06, p < .05 (d = .18) and lower
conflict [approaching significance, t(505) = 1.73, p = .08
(d = .15)]. Among MZ pairs, boys were described as more
co-dependent than girls, t(270) = 2.06, p < .05 (d = .25).
Discussion
Twin relationships remain understudied despite increased
commonality of twinning and their influences on individ-
ual development and families lives. With its large sample
size and direct comparison between twins and nontwin
siblings, the current study enabled us to empirically test
whether characteristics of sibling relationships, as reported
by their mothers, vary systematically as a function of
genetic relatedness, sibling type, and sex-composition.
Though both closeness and conflict appear to be part
of twins everyday experiences, maternal ratings of close-
ness among twins were, on average, very high (top of
Table 1). Thus, our findings suggest that twins at this age
indeed seek and enjoy each others company. Following
evolutionary logic (Hamilton, 1964; Segal & Herschberger,
1999), genetically identical twin pairs were hypothesized
to have stronger bonds than twins who are not genetically

Table 1. Mean levels (SD) of twin relationship dimensions by groups.

Sample N Closeness Conflict Dependence Rivalry

Full twin sample 1281 4.41 (.49) 2.83 (.83) 3.40 (.81) 3.10 (.93)
MZ twins 272 4.56 (.45) 2.84 (.89) 3.60 (.80) 3.13 (1.00)
Same-sex DZ twins 507 4.37 (.50) 2.87 (.82) 3.29 (.80) 3.15 (.90)
Opposite-sex DZ twins 502 4.38 (.49) 2.79 (.80) 3.39 (.81) 3.04 (.91)
Matched DZ twins 84 4.41 (.44) 2.69 (.74) 3.21 (.84) 2.99 (.83)
Nontwin siblings 84 4.10 (.51) 2.54 (.85) 2.89 (.75) 3.13 (.97)
Male MZ twins 150 4.58 (.45) 2.83 (.92) 3.69 (.75) 3.09 (1.03)
Female MZ twins 122 4.54 (.46) 2.86 (.86) 3.49 (.84) 3.18 (.96)
Male DZ twins 248 4.32 (.53) 2.94 (.80) 3.29 (.83) 3.15 (.84)
Female DZ twins 259 4.41 (.46) 2.81 (.83) 3.29 (.77) 3.15 (.84)
 210 K. Fortuna et al.
identical. Our results confirmed this hypothesis; monozy-
gotic twins were depicted as sharing stronger closeness and
dependence relative to same-sex dizygotic pairs.
These relationship dynamics may indeed be a func-
tion of kin selection pressures shaping interactions between
more versus less genetically alike individuals within fam-
ilies. Nonetheless, caution should be exerted not to con-
fuse proximate and ultimate mechanisms (de Waal, 2008).
Whereas closer MZ twin relationships may serve an ulti-
mate evolutionary goal of promoting ones genetic survival
through the welfare of a genetically identical kin, individ-
uals cannot be expected to knowingly apply this logic in
their relationships (e.g., Warneken & Tomasello, 2009).
Childrens behavior toward their twin is likely motivated
by more proximate goals. Behavior genetic studies indicate
that MZ twins are more similar than DZ twins on intelli-
gence and basic temperamental tendencies (Plomin et al.,
2001). Hence, it may be partly about interacting with a per-
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
son who is like you which fosters the stronger bond that
sets this relationship apart.
Dizygotic twins were depicted as closer and more
co-dependent than nontwin siblings. Notably, siblings who
are closest in age were also higher on ratings of rivalry
than twins, whereas MZ and DZ twins were no different
on rivalry levels. Thus, variables other than genetic similar-
ity appear to play a role in differentiating twins from other
siblings, lending support for the idea that there is some-
thing unique about the bond between twins, who go through
development together, which promotes greater closeness,
reliance, and acceptance of the others needs, including
those that conflict with ones own.
Sibling relationship research yields inconsistent find-
ings with regards to effects of sex-composition on relation-
ship quality. Our findings show that mothers report lower
dependence and stronger rivalry among same-sex twins as
compared with opposite-sex twins. It may be that same-
sex pairs have more similar needs, making the struggle for
shared resources especially tight. Also, parents are tempted
to draw comparisons between their children, more so when
they are alike (e.g., same-sex twins), which may indirectly
set the stage for stronger competitiveness.
As hypothesized, we found girl dyads to be described
as closer and less conflictual than boys, but only among
DZ twins. Counter to expectations, DZ boys and girls had
similar levels of mother-reported dependence and among
MZ dyads it was the boys who were described as more
co-dependent. Previous findings that suggested higher lev-
els of dependence among twin girls (Penninkilampi-Kerola
et al., 2005) were based on adolescent twins self-reports.
It is possible that higher dependency among girls emerges
only later. Alternatively, boys may be more reluctant
to admit to dependency, which can explain why sex-
differences tended to disappear (or reverse) in maternal
reports about adolescent twins. Thus, the use of moth-
ers reports in the present study may have contributed to
identifying sex-differences by helping overcome gender
biases in reporting dependence.
Reliance on maternal reports is also a limitation in
this study. The ratings of twins relationship characteris-
tics depend on mothers observations and interpretations
of their twins interactions, and thus at least partly reflect
maternal perceptions of the relationships. That said, parent-
reports of sibling relationships have been shown to be
valid, and to relate to siblings self-reported relationship
quality (Stoneman & Brody, 1993). The twin relationship
questionnaire did not ask mothers to evaluate twins rela-
tionship quality or even to directly rate levels of twins
closeness or dependence, but rather we asked regarding
each twins observable behaviors toward his/her co-twin
under certain situations, making it more about the twins
actual behaviors and somewhat less about mothers percep-
tions. The use of surveys in the present report enabled us to
reach hundreds of families across the country, and since our
interest was in twins early relationships it was impossible
to directly survey the children. Nevertheless, being aware
of the importance of this issue, as we follow this cohort,
we plan to use multiple methods and informants to further
assess twins relationships.
In addition, one may wonder whether differences
among zygosity groups and twins versus siblings reflect
what mothers think their childrens relationships should
be like, with tendency to perceive twins, MZ in particular,
as exceptionally close. We have partly dealt with this
issue by showing that MZ twins whose mothers mistaken
them for fraternal twins were reported to be just as close
and dependent as twins whose mothers know they are
genetically identical.
In the current report, we have focused on mean level
differences in relationship characteristics across zygosity
and sibling types. Future research may wish to further
compare the groups by looking at within-dyad differences.
Thus, by considering reports regarding each twins relation-
ship behaviors separately, differences between twins within
each dyad can be examined. In this fashion it would be
possible to test whether, for example, MZ twins are not
only perceived to have a tighter bond, but also as being
more similar to each other on their need for closeness and
dependence than are DZ twins.
It is our hope that this paper inspires further research
on twin relationships, and that a better understanding
of this relationship will help shape informed decisions
with regards to twins development. For example, a major
decision that parents face is whether or not to separate
twins in school. Some studies show detrimental effects of
classroom separation on childrens psychological wellbe-
ing and school achievement, especially among MZ twins
(Tully et al., 2004). Although others find only partial sup-
port for this effect (Van Leeuwen, Van Den Berg, Van
Beijsterveldt, & Boomsma, 2005), it is clear that under-
standing the relationship between twins can aid in making

decisions that best serve their needs. In conclusion, this
study emphasizes the need to consider the special nature of
twins relationships on their own right as well as a mean for
providing valuable information on factors that affect close
relationships more generally.
References
Ainslie, R.C. (1985). The psychology of twinship. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Akerman, B.A., & Suurvee, E. (2003).The cognitive and identity
development of twins at 16 years of age: A follow-up study
of 32 twin pairs. Twin Research, 6, 328333.
Bank, L., Patterson, G.R., & Reid, J.B. (1996). Negative sibling
interaction patterns as predictors of later adjustment prob-
lems in adolescent and young adult males. In G.H Brody
(Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences
(pp. 197229). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Burlingham, D. (1945). The fantasy of having a twin.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 205210.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 16:06 07 October 2014
Castiello, U., Becchio, C., Zoia, S., Nelini, C., Sartori, L., et al.
(2010). Wired to be social: The ontogeny of human interac-
tion. PLoS ONE, 5, e13199.
Cutting, A.L., & Dunn, J. (2006). Conversations with siblings and
with friends: Links between relationship quality and social
understanding. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
24, 7387.
de Waal, F.B.M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism:
The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,
279300.
Dunn, J. (1991). Understanding others: Evidence from naturalis-
tic studies of children. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories
of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday
mindreading (pp. 5161). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Dunn, J. (2007). Siblings and socialization. In J.E. Grusec &
P.D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research (pp. 309327). New York: The Guilford Press.
Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., & Pickering, K. (1999). Siblings,
parents, and partners: Family relationships within a longi-
tudinal community study. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 10251037.
Dunn, J., Stocker, C., & Plomin, R. (1990). Assessing the rela-
tionship between young siblings: A research note. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 983991.
Goldsmith, H.H. (1991). A zygosity questionnaire for young
twins: A research note. Behavior Genetics, 21, 257269.
Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behav-
ior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 152.
Hay, D.A., & Preedy, P. (2006). Meeting the educational needs
of multiple birth children. Early Human Development, 82,
397403.
Knafo, A. (2006). The Longitudinal Israeli Study of Twins
(LIST): Childrens social development as influenced by genet-
ics, abilities, and socialization. Twin Research and Human
Genetics, 9, 791798.
Lemery, K.S., & Goldsmith, H.H. (2001). Genetic and envi-
ronmental influences on preschool sibling cooperation and
conflict: Associations with difficult temperament and parent-
ing style. In K. Deater-Decjard & S.A. Petrill (Eds.), Gene-
environment processes in social behaviors and relationships
(pp. 7597). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Lytton, H. (1980). Parent-child interaction: The socialization pro-
cess observed in twin and singleton families. New York:
Plenum Press.
McHale, S.M., & Crouter, A. (1996). The family contexts of
childrens sibling relationships. In G.H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling
Family Science 211
relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 173195).
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Mittler, P. (1970). Biological and social aspects of language
development in twins. Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 12, 741747.
Penninkilampi-Kerola, V., Moilanen, I., & Kaprio, J. (2005). Co-
twin dependence, social interactions, and academic achieve-
ment: A population-based study. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 22, 519541.
Plomin, R., Defries, J.C., McClearn, G.E., & McGuffin, P. (2001).
Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth.
Price, T.S., Freeman, B., Craig, I.W., Petrill, S.A., Ebersole,
L., & Plomin, R. (2000). Infant zygosity can be assigned
by parental report questionnaire data. Twin Research, 3,
129133.
Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J.M., Hetherington, E.M., & Plomin,
R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and
social influences on adolescent development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Rutter, M., & Redshaw, J. (1991). Annotation: Growing up as
a twin: Twin-singleton differences in psychological devel-
opment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32,
885895.
Schave, B., & Ciriello, J. (1983). Identity and intimacy in twins.
New York: Praeger.
Segal, N.L. (1984). Cooperation, competition, and altruism within
twin sets: A reappraisal. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5,
163177.
Segal, N.L. (1999). Entwined lives: Twins and what they tell us
about human behavior. New York: Plume Press.
Segal, N.L., Connelly, S.L., & Topoloski, T.D. (1996). Twin
children with unfamiliar partners: Genotypic and gender
influences on cooperation. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37, 731735.
Segal, N.L., & Herschberger, S.L. (1999). Cooperation and
competition between twins: Findings from a prisoners
dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 29
51.
Segal, N.L., Wilson, S.M., Bouchard, T.J., & Gitlin, D.G. (1995).
Comparative grief experiences of bereaved twins and other
bereaved relatives. Personality and Individual Differences,
18(4), 511524.
Stocker, C., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1989). Sibling relationships:
Links with child temperament, maternal behavior, and family
structure. Child Development, 60, 715727.
Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G.H. (1993). Sibling temperament, con-
flict, warmth, and role asymmetry. Child Development, 64,
17861800.
Tancredy, C.M., & Fraley, C.R. (2006). The nature of adult twin
relationships: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 7893.
Tully, L.A., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Kiernan, H.,
& Andreou, P. (2004). What effect does classroom separa-
tion have on twins behavior, progress at school, and reading
abilities? Twin Research, 7, 115124.
Van Leeuwen, M., Van Den Berg, S.M., Van Beijsterveldt,
T.C.E.M., & Boomsma, D.I. (2005). Effects of twin separa-
tion in primary school. Twin Research and Human Genetics,
8, 384391.
Volling, B.L., & Blandon, A.Y. (2005). Positive indicators of sib-
ling relationship quality: The sibling inventory of behavior. In
K.A. Moore & L.H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need
to flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of pos-
itive development (pp. 203219). New York: Springer Science
+Business Media.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human
altruism. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 455471.