Siblings in Adolescence

Emerging individuals, lasting bonds

Aiden Sisler, Angela Ittel

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• Topic: Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317570226
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

How do brothers and sisters shape one another? Siblings in Adolescence provides a comprehensive overview of the most up-to-date, international empirical research on the sibling bond during the critical adolescent years. The authors examine how the relationship impacts on adolescent development, as well as the effect on and within the family, using evidence from behaviour genetics, cross-cultural studies, and research utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods.

The book presents a multi-faceted dynamic view of the adolescent sibling relationship, drawing on perspectives from sociological, psychological, and ecological and systems science. It introduces a novel theoretical perspective which covers sibling dynamics across various key environments such as their families, communities, and cultures. Parents and siblings will also find useful coverage of the following issues:

• school and life transitions
• parental separation
• health, illness, and disability
• diverse family experiences.

Siblings in Adolescence will be indispensable for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students studying human development, and will supplement postgraduate courses for teachers, counsellors, and social, youth, and health workers. It will also be required reading for all those who work and do research with families and young people.

1
Theoretical and Thematic Plurality in Sibling Research

Contents

Sibling study in summary: Is thematic plurality a boon or a burden?

Setting the theoretical stage

Individual and dyadic psychological processes and siblings

Psychoanalytic and evolutionary psychology

Attachment relations

Individual psychology theories of development

Theories on social processes

Social learning and socialization in the sibling relationship

Anthropological takes, sociological turns

Systems theories

Ecological family approaches

Family system theory

Feminist revisions and transactional family systems theory

Spectrum of sibling study

References

Sibling study in summary: Is thematic plurality a boon or a burden?

We start out our brief, but wide-ranging theoretical review by considering a variety of different perspectives. We will explore psychoanalytic, social learning, and social psychological approaches, and social constructionist, ecological and systems science, feminist sociological paradigms, and evolutionary and (genetic) biological perspectives. Each framework will be positioned historically and accompanied by contextualized examples of typical empirical research vis-à-vis the sibling bond. We will then attempt, in turn, to synthesize and evaluate their respective research programmes. In so doing, we lay the base for a more considered research and practice-driven approach that will be addressed in the book’s remainder.

In performing an initial attempt to gather the seemingly disjointed strands of sibling-related work, both theoretical and applied, one is struck by the plurality of the field. Academics have entertained multiple research foci, ranging from the instinct-driven psychoanalytic writings of Freud and Klein, with their classical leanings toward deep-seated sibling rivalry, anxiety, and conflict, to less-studied social constructivist and feminist family sociological takes on the dynamic intersubjectivities involved in development that often embrace positive and community psychology precepts (e.g. McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003; Rodríguez & Moro, 2008). Cultural studies go on to suggest that what it means to be brother or sister varies vastly from one group to the next. This multiplicity across theoretical time and space is understandable, given the complexities in tracing human development – a most ‘ultra-social’ of species – and our consequent ever-evolving conceptualizations (Zlatev, 2008).

As we bid to unite these fragmented, yet thematically interrelated, sub-disciplines, we necessarily limit our central concentration to the sibling relationship over adolescence, particularly due to the twofold reasons of the importance of adolescence in development and the shortfall of accompanying sibling research. This is, of course, not to say that valuable scholarship and inroads have not been produced in this vein: McHale, Crouter, and Family Relationships Project colleagues at Penn State; Conger and researchers at UC Davis’ Human Development and Family Studies consort; and Pike and associates at the University of Sussex are but a few examples of academics doing serious work on brothers and sisters across the lifespan. Nevertheless, as McHale, Updegraff, and Whiteman (2012) show, the relative shortage of focus placed on siblings is glaring both in and among family and developmental studies. For further readings on childhood-specific, young adulthood–specific, and adult-specific sibling inquiry, we refer the reader to the infancy (e.g. Volling, 1997, 2001; Volling & Belsky, 1992), young adulthood (e.g. Conger & Little, 2010; Milevsky, 2004, 2005; Milevsky & Heerwagen, 2013), and life course work by the likes of Elder (1996), White (2001), and Cicirelli (1992, 1995).

Setting the theoretical stage

Since Freud’s post-Victorian psychoanalytic cogitations, psychological theorizing and research efforts have privileged sibling and familial effects in the conceptualization of development. Corresponding individual-level differences born largely of intrapsychic and familial processes that influence personality and temperament factors assumed leading importance (Pike & Kretschmer, 2009). From the intrapersonal level, social psychology and sociology imparted insight into dyadic and group-level processes, and family systems and feminist perspectives such as feminist family sociology likewise drew attention to individuals embedded in dynamic socio-environmental contexts and their divergent experiences (Ferree, 1990; McHale et al., 2003). Other socio-cultural approaches taken up by developmentalists – Greenfield’s (2009) theory of human development and socio-cultural change, for instance – contributed to our understanding of the extensive forces prevalent in maturation, drawing much needed attention to the interface between individuals, their interrelationships, and how they form and are formed by the environments they live in.

Dynamic interdisciplinary developmental work started relatively late, yet the multipartite theoretical movement (e.g. developmental systems perspectives (Scheithauer, Niebank, & Ittel, 2009)) has recently ignited interest for those concerned with a more holistic research programme, and continues to hold promise, cropping up in the latest research pursuits and publications (Ittel & Kretschmer, 2007). However, an overwhelming minority of publications takes an interdisciplinary approach to the developmental study of siblings in adolescence (McHale et al., 2012). Researchers must contend with theoretical and logistical complexity, and are in want of a methodological beacon.

While no one line of inquiry, inter- and trans-disciplinary methodologies included, can account for the rich intricacies of a living being’s development, new conceptualizations like developmental systems perspectives stimulate the research landscape. This grouping seeks to overcome gaps and blind spots by complementing various research approaches. For example, Edwards and colleagues quest to offer a portrait of the meaning of siblings from the perspective of young people themselves modelled this timely tactic through their augmentation of combined psychoanalytic (inner psyche/psychological) and social constructivist (intrapersonal) tenets (Edwards, Hadfield, Lucey, & Mauthner, 2006). We assert that such considered perspectives provide a bountiful breeding ground for best-practice exploration. This is, however, tricky to achieve, as no one ‘sibling theory’ or model currently exists, and even causal explanations within the family are scarce (Caspi, 2011).

Individual and dyadic psychological processes and siblings

Psychoanalytic and evolutionary psychology

We start with an abridged depiction of Bowlby’s theory of attachment and Adler’s theory of individual psychology, two focal theories of the psychoanalytic tradition that can help elucidate the intrapsychic processes involved in sibling relationships (Whiteman, McHale, & Soli, 2011). These notions of social relations draw extensively on post–World War I theories of human nature and development, of which Freud’s theory of human desire and consciousness was the most influential (Fromm, 1956). Biological laws from Tinbergen’s (1951) ethological theory to classic Darwinism (Darwin, 1859) directly understood (human) development in terms of survival of the fittest; species-typical instinctual social patterns of behaviour were seen to bestow certain adaptive survival mechanisms. The principle of divergence, for instance, maintains that sibling diversification processes operate through ordinal rank and so direct children’s opportunities to engage in particular activities (Sulloway, 2007, 2010). Following the spike in interest of socio-biological accounts of human evolution and sociality, the sibling relationship has been once more positioned as a worthy point of focus for developmentalists (Whiteman et al., 2011).

Importantly, psychodynamic theory, in its seeking to understand the root functions of close intimate relationships, draws attention to the function of familial relationships over and above exhibited behaviours. It seeks to understand the root functions of close intimate relationships. According to Freud (1953–1974), the dynamic unconscious and the Oedipal complex are central in the development of individual personality; parent–child interactions set the stage for all subsequent psychological developments. Kleinian and object relations theorists equally house the locus of emotional growth and health in the parent–child relationship (Klein, 1952). This notion relegates siblings to a secondary role in individual maturation. Here, dysfunctional, inadequate parenting is seen to motivate a survival response behind significant sibling attachment and meaning (Coles, 2003; Mitchell, 2003).

Otherwise, lending from unconscious drives and impulses, siblings from the Freudian perspective are mostly objects of suspicion and figures of rivalrous desires. The firstborn is accorded blanket importance such that status effects and individual sibling’s perspectives are largely neglected (Coles, 2003). Primogeniture, the granting of status or material claims to the family’s firstborn (male) by right, by law or by practice further exemplifies this status hierarchy and often widespread means of succession. Here, one can conjecture that the influence of psychodynamic and historical assumptions which pervades early works on social relationships focused research on problems rather than solutions.

Attachment relations

Individual differences also occupy a critical role with respect to social bonds in attachment theory. Bowlby (1969/1982) and other attachment theorists (e.g. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Baumrind, 1967; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002) have endeavoured to explain developmental maturation, although whereas Bowlby held attachment to be an all-or-nothing mother–child process, subsequent views embrace variation evident in recent attachment research. Attachment figures, or primary caregivers, are crucial for the young infant’s survival from the first moments of life and provide different degrees of security based on their own sensitivity and responsiveness. The infant attempts to influence parental warmth and responsiveness through the use of proximity-seeking behaviours like crying. All other social relationships are seen to stem from relational blueprints laid down by the attachment figure–infant bond. Individual expectancies, understandings, emotions, and behaviours are fundamentally shaped in a series of intimate dyadic interactions between parent and offspring. It follows that the caregiver–child bond holds long-lasting implications for social relationships, with secure attachment affording close and trusting intimate relations with others such as sisters and brothers. Conversely, insecure attachment relations are believed to result in relationships less satisfying at best, and dysfunctional and damaging at worst.

So where does this leave siblings? In consideration of the parent–child union and its assumed greater repercussions, healthy parental attachment relationships bolster and scaffold adaptive and secure attachment to others, particularly siblings. Moreover, brothers and sisters can serve as attachment objects themselves, acting as important sources of security and support from which their siblings can venture into the environment (e.g. Samuels, 1980). Furthermore, older siblings can actively encourage exploration (Samuels, 1980) or provide comfort during times of distress in the face of a primary caregiver’s absence (Stewart, 1983; Teti & Ablard, 1989).

Those individuals who have a sibling as primary attachment figure are seen as seeking an attachment object in response to a dysfunctional, negligent parent, who should, in keeping with psychodynamic and Bowlby-based theory, be the mother. Current empirical work, albeit not of a decided psychodynamic thrust, runs contrary to this proposition and reveals that siblings can indeed form important attachment bonds with one another and offer vital emotional support (e.g. Jenkins, 1992; Kim, McHale, Wayne Osgood, & Crouter, 2006; Voorpostel & Blieszner, 2008). Compatible evidence tells of increased affinity for support on the part of older siblings, especially in mixed-dyads (e.g. Oliva & Arranz, 2005; Ryherd, 2011; Stewart, 1983), which implicates both the potential for rivalry and conflict in same-gender dyads (Whiteman et al., 2011) and the gendered role prescriptions of care and intimacy (e.g. Cole & Kerns, 2001). However, this strand of inquiry awaits further elaboration as other studies tell a perpendicular story of an absence of mixed-dyad effects or more positive close relations between sisters (e.g. Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994; Feinberg, McHale, Crouter, & Cumsille, 2003; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992).

Again, the drought of literature on adolescent-specific sibling attachment relations makes for difficult depiction. In a sample drawn from the Netherlands, adolescents at approximately age 12 displayed a significant increase in attachment bonds to their sibling, partly attributed to new, shared environments, and experiences as the younger joined the older sibling in high school (Buist, Dekovic´, Meeus, & van Aken, 2002). During the transitional period from childhood to adolescence and adolescence to young adulthood, attachment relationships with siblings may become progressively voluntary and peer-like. Constructs like empathy and shared experiences may underpin sibling attachment relationship development, partially due to its characte...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• List of figures
• Series preface
• Introduction
• 1 Theoretical and thematic plurality in sibling research
• 2 Adolescent siblings and within-family study
• 3 Siblings and their relationships: Correlates and effects
• 4 Behavioural genetics and sibling research
• 5 Cross-cultural and international research on siblings in adolescence
• 6 Methods in family and sibling research
• 7 Findings and futures in sibling research
• Appendix
• Index