Final PDF

Preview

Summary

Final research paper in the form of a literature review....

Description

Running head: THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

The Complexity of Sibling Relationships: Conflict Management and Relational Satisfaction Conflict Communication

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

2

The Complexity of Sibling Relationships: Conflict Management and Relational Satisfaction Siblings represent a very unique and complex interpersonal relationship. Not only do siblings provide companionship, but they also serve as protectors, teachers, and competitors (Martin et al., 1997). Naturally, siblings spend a lot of time together, especially during early childhood and adolescence. In turn, they have an extensive understanding of each other's personal history (Teven et al., 1998) and are likely to form sibling coalitions (e.g. dealing with their parents; Rittenour et al., 2007). In addition, a relationship with a sibling is considered the longest lasting relationship most individuals experience in their life (Rittenour et al., 2007). Thus, Rittenour et al. (2007) suggest that sibling relationships are also defined by their emotional closeness, which involves the use of affectionate communication and communication-based emotional support, differentiating sibling relationships from most other interpersonal relationships. However, the sibling relationship combines intimacy and incompatible goals or perspectives. As a result, Ross et al. (2006) suggest that siblings frequently experience conflict. Given the inherent prevalence of rivalry and verbal aggression, siblings adopt negotiation, problem-solving, and cooperative skills to maintain closeness and relational satisfaction. Conflict among siblings often emerges from poor peer relationships, academic difficulties, conduct problems, aggression, or possession or entitlement issues (Ram & Ross, 2008; Ross et al., 2006). In addition, "the dynamic personalities and ever-changing interaction patterns of family members are sources for stress and subsequent conflict" (Teven et al., 1998, p. 183). Sibling rivalry is also a leading contributor to conflict and stems from competition between siblings for love, affection, recognition, or attention from their parents (Phillips & Schrodt, 2015). Rivalry or competition is characterized by aggressive and uncooperative behavior and is generally associated with a dominating, power-over conflict style (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018).

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

3

Thus, when competing with one another, siblings are generally pursing their own concerns at the expense of their brother or sister. Siblings would then use more direct confrontation communication behaviors to win in the conflict, without considering the other person's goals and interests (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). Therefore, despite the benefits of maintaining a satisfying sibling relationship, Phillips and Schrodt (2015) argue there is potential for such relationships to also be destructive. In a study of more than 300 young adults, Phillips and Schrodt (2015) found that when children perceive that they or their sibling has received differential treatment (e.g. favoritism) from a parent, they are less satisfied in their sibling relationship. This is because parental differential treatment fosters sibling rivalry and jealousy, which is generally considered to be destructive in nature (Phillips & Schrodt, 2015). In turn, the authors suggest that individuals who are less satisfied in their sibling relationship may be less likely to use constructive communication behaviors to enhance their relational closeness. In addition, Teven et al. (1998) argue that conflict and aggression among siblings is common during childhood. Given the nature of their relationship, siblings often exchange verbally aggressive messages (Teven et al., 1998). Hocker and Wilmot (208) explain that verbal abuse is used to attack a person's self-concept and inflict psychological pain. Thus, Teven et al. (1998) suggest that verbal aggression is used during conflict in response to managing competition. However, the use of verbal aggression can lead to negative relational outcomes and hostility. This was supported in a study by Teven et al. (1998), which showed that siblings' use of verbal aggression resulted in a lower level of relational satisfaction. For the study, 233 students enrolled in communication courses at mid-Atlantic university participated. All of the participants had at least one sibling, whom they were asked to consider in their responses. The questionnaire asked students about their relationship with that sibling, including how frequently verbally

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

4

aggressive messages (i.e. sarcasm and criticism) were exchanged and their perceived level of relational satisfaction. Not only did the researchers find that verbal aggression negatively impacts relational satisfaction, but also that female siblings receive more verbal aggression than males (Teven et al., 1998). Martin et al. (1997) also examined the impact verbal aggressiveness has on relational satisfaction, as well as trust. Conflict among siblings is generally handled by yelling, screaming, or teasing one another — also known as verbal aggression (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). For the study, Martin et al. (1997) recruited 227 students from a large university in the Midwest United States, who were enrolled in communication courses. All of the participants reported having at least one sibling, and were asked to focus on only one sibling relationship for the purpose of the study. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that assessed their verbal aggressiveness, teasing, hurt, interpersonal trust, and satisfaction, as well as their sibling's. Overall, Martin et al. (1997) found that participants' perception of verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to satisfaction and trust with their siblings, underscoring the destructive nature of verbal aggressiveness. However, the researchers identified a limitation, and possible area of further research, regarding why siblings choose to use verbal aggression. Ross et al. (2006) suggest sibling conflict is largely inevitable due to incompatible goals. When two parties, such as siblings, are involved in conflict and perceive different outcomes, they have incompatible goals (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). For example, when one sibling wants to watch one television program and the other wants to watch something different, the two interests are incompatible (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). In a study of more than 100 sibling pairs, Haefner et al. (1989) found that television coviewing is common among younger children, leading to conflict over program choice. Television use and program choice influences how family

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

5

members negotiate their relationship, which, in turn, helps children learn interpersonal conflict skills such as negotiation and compromise (Haefner et al., 1989). Hocker and Wilmot (2018) describe negotiation as a means to settle a dispute and reach a mutual agreement. Similarly, compromising is characterized by some gains and losses for both parties involved in conflict (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). However, Hocker and Wilmot (2018) also explain that negotiation can be competitive or integrative, depending on the distribution of power and structure of the conflict situation. Watching television with a sibling occurs frequently within the family context. Thus, Haefner et al. (1989) examined how sibling pairs resolve conflict related to differing interests in television program choice. Conflict is common among siblings and is largely influenced by ordinal position, age, and gender. Research has shown that the older sibling generally prevails and wins in the decision of program choice, and males generally use more high-power conflict strategies than females (Haefner et al., 1989). For the study, Haefner et al. (1989) looked at how children negotiate program selection, specifically focusing on children's self-reported use of strategies to convince their sibling to watch a desired program. Haefner et al. (1989) studied 115 sibling pairs, in which participants ranged in age from six to eleven years old. For the purpose of the study, the researchers divided the sibling pairs into two groups, small-interval and large-interval, based on the age difference between the two siblings. For the small-interval group, siblings were separated by zero to two years, while siblings in the large-interval group were separated by three to five years. In addition, the sibling pairs consisted of an older male and a younger male; an older male and a younger female; an older female and a younger male; and an older female and a younger female (Haefner et al., 1989).

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

6

Sibling pairs from three different schools in the Midwest United States were asked to participate, following parental consent. Each sibling was interviewed individually for approximately 10-12 minutes while at school. The interviews took place between 1984 and 1985, and were conducted by two female interviewers. The interview questions asked participants about their television viewing habits, including the amount of time spent with television or other media, and their relationship with their sibling and any conflicts experienced about television program choice (Haefner et al., 1989). The interview questions were open-ended and qualitative in nature. In turn, the participants' responses were coded to identify patterns of conflict strategy among the sibling pairs. This included high power strategies, such as physical force, threats, and taking control; low power strategies, such as crying, pouting, telling a parent, begging, bribery, or taking turns; and no conflict situations, in which the siblings agreed on what to watch or would move to a different television set (Haefner et al., 1989). The responses from each participant were paired with his or her sibling's responses to identify a correlation between each child's self-report and their sibling's prediction. The results of the study showed that both older and younger siblings reported watching television with their sibling, suggesting that coviewing among siblings is common (Haefner et al., 1989). In addition, Haefner et al. (1989) identified siblings' strategy choices in relation to the pairs' ordinal position, age interval, and gender dynamics. In general, the researchers found that low power strategies, including promises, bribery, and taking turns, was most common among sibling pairs who experienced conflict over television program choice. While a few siblings reported use of high-power strategies, it was far less common and included behaviors such as taking control or using physical force (Haefner et al., 1989). However, Haefner et al. (1989) also found that about 30 percent of the participants reported that conflict did not occur at all, meaning

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

7

that the siblings enjoyed watching the same program, would change the program willingly when asked, or would move to watch a program on a different television set if they did not agree. The researchers suggest that this is indicative of the reciprocal nature of sibling relationships, as well as siblings' ability to easily negotiate or compromise (Haefner et al., 1989). In addition, when experiencing situations of conflict, Haefner et al. (1989) found that male participants reported more high-power strategies, whereas females reported more lowpower strategies to mitigate the situation. However, ordinal position (i.e. first-born or secondborn) and the age different between siblings was not strongly correlated to the power strategy used by either sibling, or the siblings' perception of the other (Haefner et al., 1989). Thus, the authors argue that differences in conflict resolution strategies occur only between male and female siblings, suggesting the older sibling does not necessarily always dominate the conflict situation. Overall, low power strategies were reported most frequently for conflict resolution among the sibling pairs. Thus, Haefner et al. (1989) suggest that siblings' use of turn-taking and bribery (i.e. promises of a reward) demonstrates positive interpersonal conflict strategies. However, while coviewing was reported as common by the sibling pairs, the researchers found that most of the pairs did not accurately predict the strategies that their siblings would use to mitigate conflict over television program viewing (Haefner et al., 1989). The authors acknowledged that this may be due to different perceptions of the context, which is a limitation of self-reported data. In addition, another limitation of the study was that the participants were all young children, who have different perceptions of conflict and the contexts in which is exists. Thus, Haefner et al. (1989) suggest more in-depth interviews, or providing a list of possible conflict strategy choices, would help clarify sibling perceptions. Haefner et al. (1989) identified

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

8

this as a potential area for further research, specifically focusing on the complex nature of coviewing and power relationships within the family dynamic. Ross et al. (2006) also studied how siblings resolve conflict. For the purpose of the study, the researchers focused on ongoing conflict that has created continued contention in the siblings' relationship. Specifically, the researchers aimed to determine whether or not conflict negation could be used to resolve past situations, ranging from harmful actions like hitting, deceiving, or taunting, to damaging the other person's possessions or goal interference. Hocker and Wilmot (2018) explain that interference occurs when one person gets in the way, or blocks, the goals of another person. For example, sibling interference may occur when the other sibling's friends are visiting (Ross et al., 2006). In addition, the researchers looked at the resolution and whether the conflict resulted in a win-loss or compromise, in which both siblings were able to partially achieve their goals. Ross et al. (2006) also examined the influence of the siblings' age and ordinal position, as either the older or younger sibling. The researchers hypothesized that older siblings would assume a leadership role in negotiation and use more sophisticated planning strategies, as older children tend to have a better understanding of conflict processes (Ross et al., 2006). In turn, Ross et al. (2006) argue that older siblings may either be more able and willing to find a solution that accounts for the goals of both parties, or more likely to take advantage of their younger sibling in pursuit of their own goals. For the study, Ross et al. (2006) asked sibling pairs to reflect on an earlier, unsettled conflict and discuss how it could have been resolved. The study involved 64 sibling pairs, who were recruited from schools in the Chicago metropolitan area. The study asked the siblings, aged 4 to 12 years old, to choose a past or ongoing conflict and then try to come up with a solution during 10-minute discussions. Most of the families who participated in the study comprised of a

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

9

mother, father, older child, and younger child. However, the study also included several families consisting of a single mother and two children (Ross et al., 2006). In addition, Ross et al. (2006) noted that the average age difference between the siblings was approximately three years, and the total number of siblings in each family ranged from two to seven children. Data was collected during multiple at-home visits, which included interviews and observations. Each child was asked to complete relationship questionnaires, which assessed the qualities that they perceived their siblings brought to the relationship, such as liking, compassion, sharing, or fighting. Siblings were interviewed individually and then as a pair, at which time the siblings were asked to collectively choose which conflict disclosed during their private interview that they wanted to discuss together. In most cases, the researchers found that the issues selected for discussion were first described during the older sibling's interview. In turn, Ross et al. (2006) asked the siblings to discuss the chosen issue alone and identify a resolution that was satisfactory for both parties. Although the siblings were left alone to discuss, Ross et al. (2006) recorded both the audio and visual exchanges of the negotiation process, with the participants' consent. Overall, the researchers found that most of the sibling pairs were able to productively discuss and resolve their conflicts, suggesting that after the heat of the moment had passed and strong emotions had subsided, the children were able to talk about the issue and listen to each other (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018; Ross et al., 2006). Of the participants, Ross et al. (2006) found that 42 percent compromised to come up with a solution that satisfied both parties, and 23 percent of the sibling pairs came to an agreement that benefited just one (i.e. a win-loss resolution). In addition, the researchers found that older siblings were more inclined to take on a leadership role of the negotiation process, which included proposing a resolution and gaining agreement. Meanwhile, younger siblings would counter or disagree. Thus, Ross et al. (2006)

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

10

argue that children's negotiation strategies are largely influenced by their position as either the older or younger sibling. While most of the sibling pairs were able to come to a resolution, Ross et al. (2006) noted that the results of the study are not predictive of whether or not the pair will be able to avoid or resolve conflicts in the future. Ideally, the researchers argue that prior agreements should help mitigate future conflict, or making finding resolutions easier, though that is an area for further research. Ram and Ross (2008) also examined negotiation, and the role that information-sharing plays in mitigating conflict. The study consisted of 32 sibling pairs from a city in Canada. The participants were divided among two group (i.e. information and control) and presented with five toys. Each sibling was asked to rate the toys in order from most to least desired. The siblings assigned to the information group were then asked to share their top two toy choices with their sibling, and explain why they chose those toys. Conversely, when the siblings assigned to the control group were brought back together, they were asked to share their two favorite foods and explain why. The intent of the control group was to confirm that any influence of informationsharing was the result of relevant information being exchanged (Ram & Ross, 2008). After the siblings shared information regarding their favorite toys or food, they were asked to collectively decide, or negotiate, who would take which toys home. For the study, the children were left alone to negotiate the toy division. Once a decision had been made, the researchers interviewed the children about their selection and the negotiation process. In turn, Ram and Ross (2008) quantitatively measured the degree to which the siblings' toy preferences overlapped and how the conflict was resolved. Overall, the study revealed that older siblings took more of a lead in problem solving, including tactics such as information statements, asking questions, guiding division, and persuasive arguments (Ram & Ross, 2008). While problem-solving tactics were

THE COMPLEXITY OF SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

11

more commonly used among the sibling groups, Ram and Ross (2008) did observe some pairs struggle, which included verbal tactics, such as threats and negative evaluations. Of the 32 sibling pairs, all but five were able to fully negotiate their toy selection, and most of the pairs who resolved their differences reached a win-win solution. In addition, four of the five pairs who were unable to resolve conflicting toy choices belonged to the control group...