Sibling Relationships

University Degree Medicine and Dentistry

Abstract:

This paper takes a look at the sibling relationship and how siblings communicate with each other whether a brother-brother, sister-sister, or a brother-sister relationship. This paper looks at the many of the different aspects that entail these relationships.

Introduction:

The sibling relationship is considered the most important relationship in a person’s life. Siblings help each other define who they are in their gender and as individuals, and they also provide emotional support. This relationship is unique and lifelong. It remains stable throughout the lifespan, and is kept healthy through relational maintenance behaviors.

Birth Order

Birth order plays a major role in the way that siblings communicate with one another. It influences their language development and their social order. The older siblings are usually the caretakers and providers for the younger ones. The younger siblings are usually influenced by the standards that the older siblings have set in place for them to follow (Edwards, Mauthner, Hadfield, 2005). The place in the birth order that siblings occupied had a role in their commitment to the relationship. Since older siblings generally have a caretaking position in the younger siblings’ lives, the younger siblings will especially feel closer to the older siblings. This is especially true as the siblings get older and older family members die, they will need someone to fill in the caretaking role (Rittenour, Myers, & Brann, 2007).

Gender roles

Children’s sibling relationships are a place where social learning involves the production of femininity and masculinity. Edwards believes that being a boy or a girl is not biologically driven or a matter of socialization into premade gender roles by parents, but it is a continual interactive process. The relationship with siblings plays part in the social learning, producing, and reproducing of femininity and masculinity (2005). It is also seen in the relational patterns of the parents’ interactions with each other and their children. Parents interact with each child differently which accounts for the differences in siblings even though they have grown up in the same family.

Gender and Communication Styles

Gender in children’s sibling relationships in males is shown through activities such as rough housing, football, and physical fighting. For females this is shown through interaction such as talking. Gender roles are particularly shown in the brother-sister relationship. In most brother-sister relationships, communication is done through activities just like when it is done in brother-brother relationships. Relationships also display different gendered power. In brother-sister relationships, predominately it was found that activities were used instead of talking which is seen in sister-sister relationships. In brother-brother relationships, gendered power comes across through dual goals through activities. This is achieved by connection/separation where the brothers develop their own sense of masculine subjectivity by activities. In sister-sister relationships, the dual goals of femininity of separation/connectedness are achieved through talk and some activities (Edwards, Mauthner, Hadfield, 2005).

Men and women also demonstrate closeness to each other in different ways which is known as the gendered closeness perspective. Sister-sister relationships usually place more value on the amount of intimacy, confidentiality, and verbal communication. They were also significantly more likely to talk about fears and personal problems, say that they love or like each other, hug, and share on a deeper level than men. While brother-brother relationships, on the other hand, look to shared interests and activities for communicating and level of intimacy. They were also more likely to go drinking together, shake hands, and talk about their sexual experiences as a way to bring about closeness. In both types of relationships, the partners felt equally closes to each other (Floyd, 1994).

The sibling relationships do not remain the same through out the life span, but continue to change as time goes by. Since sister-sister relationships are based on talking, they are better able to remain in contact with each other over time and geographical distance. It is harder for brother-brother relationships to remain in contact with one another because their relationship closeness is based on activities (Edwards, 2005)

Emotional Stability

In the study that Edwards conducted, he found that the siblings he interviewed said that having a brother or sister meant that there was someone who would be there for them. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Emotional Stability

In the study that Edwards conducted, he found that the siblings he interviewed said that having a brother or sister meant that there was someone who would be there for them. The siblings were a vital part of their sense of being. Siblings provided a sense an individualized sense of connection, emotional security, and protection from the sense of being alone. Siblings provide these good traits along with some not so good traits. Almost all the siblings in Edwards study said that they fought with siblings, and even used terms such as annoying to describe them (Edwards, Mauthner, Hadfield, 2005).

Personality Types

Firstborns typically have a dominant personality type in the sibling relationship. Younger siblings tend to be the peacemakers and comply with the older ones (Edwards, Mauthner, Hadfield, 2005). When there is a disagreement, older siblings usually get their way in the matter.

Conflict

Younger siblings are more inclined to use verbally aggressive messages in order to address issues such as rivalry, envy, and jealousy. Many siblings have reported feeling that their siblings are receiving preferential treatment by the parents. The siblings would then use verbally aggressive messages to retaliate toward their siblings (Myers and Goodboy, 2006). Both children in sibling relationships tend to perceive that the older one uses high power strategies like bossiness. However, sibling conflict can lead to developing positive interpersonal skills like negotiation and compromise (Haefner, Metts, Wartella, 1989).

Sibling Use of Relational Communication Messages and Satisfaction

Walster and Walster (1976) defined interpersonal attraction as “an individual’s tendency or predisposition to evaluate another person or symbol of the person in a positive (or negative) way.” They base this idea on the reinforcement theory which says that individuals like and are attracted to people who reward them, and dislike and are not attracted to people who are not rewarding to them. This attraction helps give an understanding about relational outcomes such as liking, loving, and intimacy. Being in a sibling relationship can already be considered a reward because these relationships usually are the longest relationships in a person’s life. Cicirelli (1995) believes that siblings provide support for one another by defining morals, financially, emotionally, provide companionship, and being each other’s confidants. He also believes that the older siblings get the more the relationship becomes equal, affectionate tone increases, and the relationship becomes voluntary. The sibling relationship is usually viewed with positive feelings.

Researchers have found several communication behaviors that are related with sibling satisfaction. Some of these behaviors are perceived sibling similarity, solidarity, credibility along with trust, and self-disclosure. Also, teasing and verbal aggression are related to sibling communication. The satisfaction in sibling relationships is seen as the communication exchanges that happen between siblings. Burgoon and Hale (1984, 1987) found eight relational dimensions in interpersonal communication which are immediacy, similarity, receptivity, composure, formality, dominance, equality, and task orientation. When these eight dimensions are used the sibling communication can be enhanced. Conndis and Campbell (1995) reported that the main reason that siblings consider each other close friends is mutual confidence. When siblings are in contact with each other they also feel emotionally close. 75% of siblings that were surveyed considered at least one sibling a close friend. Five of the relational dimensions were related to sibling communication satisfaction were equality, receptivity, immediacy, similarity, and composure. Solidarity was the largest predictor of satisfaction in sibling relationships which is seen in the exchange and flow of information. The findings in this study found, “that when siblings establish relational intimacy, they treat each other as equals, establish rapport, engage in self-disclosure, and regard each other as friends during interactions. As relationships become more intimate, communication becomes more in-depth, more flexible, and encompasses many topics” (Myers, 1995). Cooperation is also a part of this.

Perceived Understanding and Self-Disclosure

Since the sibling relationship is life-long and involuntary, people look to their siblings to fulfill such needs as comfort, companionship, intimacy, affection, and friendship. Communication can be seen as a response or a starter to these personal needs, and people use communication to get closer with their siblings. People have a desire to feel understood in relationships. When they feel that they are not understood, the relationships become unsatisfactory interactions are avoided. People become closer through self-disclosure, which in sibling relationships is directly related to higher levels of satisfaction and liking with a decrease in loneliness. It has also been found that depth and breadth of self-disclosure were related to this as well. Depending on the sex of the siblings, they will differ in their self-disclosure. Women have a higher sense to self-disclose to their sisters, and it has been found that same-sex siblings have greater intimacy, affection, and companionship (Mottet, Martin, Anderson, 1997).

Sibling Communication Satisfaction

Through out the lifespan siblings play different roles in each other’s lives. They can be teachers, playmates, peers, companions, confidants, and friends. Of all individuals, 80% report that they spend at least one-third of their life with their siblings (Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1994). It is because of this type of relationship that siblings create unique communication patterns that are unknown to any other type of relationship. Very little research has been done on sibling communication satisfaction, but women have reported being more satisfied with their sibling relationships than men in most instances.

This is an interesting topic to look at because unlike all other types of relationships the sibling relationship is not voluntary. Siblings have to spend a lot of time together growing up, and they also have to compete with one another for the parents’ affection, time, and money. Also throughout their lives, siblings are always engaging in trusting behaviors. These behaviors include caretaking, protectors, role models, and babysitting. As siblings get older, they use self-disclosive behaviors that cause them to be more verbal with one another. Through self-disclosure siblings are able to express themselves through feelings, emotions, and thoughts. Myers says that these three variables are directly related to the development of intimate relationships. This relationship makes it easy to see that interpersonal solidarity, individualized trust, and self-disclosure are related to sibling communication (1998).

Adolescence and College Sibling Communication

Rocca and Martin have found that the way that siblings interact with one another during their adolescent years has an impact on their relationships and personalities later on in life (1998). They have found that the sibling relationship may become more distant or closer during adolescence and the relationship changes through the years with regard to conflict and support as well. The age of the siblings is not the lone factor of how close the siblings will remain. It depends on relational factors such as willingness to communicate and solidarity. When in college, Floyd (1994) found that siblings tend to have a friendship-like relationship that is voluntary. Since college is stressful, siblings need each other for moral support as they are going through these rough times. It has also been reported that college aged siblings who were raised by both parents were more likely to see their siblings, had greater communication with them, and were more likely to discuss problems than those students who had been raised in single parent homes. It was also found that college students believed their closest friend to be closer than their closest sibling (1998).

Commitment and Emotional Closeness in the Sibling Relationship

The psychological attachment that people form as an intent to indefinitely continue a relationship is known as commitment which is a cornerstone to all close relationships. Johnson (1999) believes that commitment comes out of people expressing a personal desire, obligation or forced feeling because of social pressures to stay in a relationship. Commitment is seen in close relationships through people spending time together and expressing positive emotions towards the other. The commitment level in the sibling relationship is different since the relationship is voluntary. It is considered likely that siblings remain committed to each other just because they share biological bonds. Commitment to the sibling relationship is stable across the lifespan (Rittenour, Myers, & Brann, 2007). The commitment is also realized through emotional closeness, affectionate communication, and birth order. Emotional closeness is the trust, concern, sense of shared experiences, enjoyment of the relationship, and emotional support. Affectionate communication is expressed nonverbally and verbally and is an individual’s intentional enactment or expression of feelings of closeness, care, and fondness.

Sibling Relational Maintenance Behaviors

Relational maintenance behaviors are the actions and activities used to sustain desired relational definitions in relationships. People desire to continue a relationship for several reasons. Some of these reasons are to keep a relationship in a satisfactory condition, to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition, or to keep a relationship in repair. People use relational maintenance behaviors in order to accomplish all or any of these goals (Myers & Weber, 2004). Siblings use relational maintenance behaviors just like those used in romantic or platonic relationships. The difference in the intimacy levels of these types of relationships is the relationship length and the factors pressing upon the development of intimacy. Sibling intimacy is originated in the early childhood years and remains constant because of the shared experiences. This is different from platonic or romantic relationships because the intimacy in these relationships is usually found in adulthood. The closer that siblings feel to each other when they were young, in spite of fighting or rivalry, they generally remain close and look back on those times with fondness (2004).

There are five relational maintenance behaviors that are in the sibling relationship. These five behaviors are openness, assurances, positivity, networks, and sharing tasks. Openness is when individuals use self-disclosure to tell the other person their feelings about the nature of the relationship. Assurances are when an individual expresses a desire to remain involved and committed in a relationship. Positivity is communication with a partner that is optimistic, cheerful, cooperative, and enjoyable. Networks are common memberships that partners are both involved in. Task sharing is when both partners participate in sharing responsibility for unique tasks to the relationship (Myers & COM 200, 2001). Tasks has been found to be used the most frequently, and openness the least frequently. Siblings tend to be more open with their friends on many topics, but they are more open with their siblings when talking about their parents. Openness is not considered an essential part of the sibling relationship like it is in friendship. The five behaviors have also been found to be positively correlated to sibling liking, and sibling liking is the foremost predictor because it co notates positivity, networks, and tasks behaviors. Female siblings use relational maintenance behaviors more frequently than male siblings (2001).

Conclusion

The sibling relationship is very complex and unique. It is the only relationship that will last for most of an individual’s life. Siblings help each other form with everything from babysitting them to helping form gender roles. Siblings are a cornerstone to most people’s lives and especially their childhood and college years. Relational maintenance behaviors are used to help us maintain these relationships once siblings leave the home. The sibling relationship is foundational in all aspects of life.

Works Cited

Burgoon, J. K. & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication.

Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

Burgoon, J. K. & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental

themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum.

Conndis, I. A., & Campbell, L. D. (1995). Closeness, confiding, and contact among

siblings in middle and late adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 722-745.

Edwards, R., Mauthner, M., Hadfield, L. (2005). Children’s sibling relationships and

gendered practices: talk, activity and dealing with change. Gender & Education,

17 (5), 499-513. Retrieved November 2007 from EbscoHost Database. 17886431.

Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Badzinski, D.M. (1994). All in the family: Interpersonal

communication in kin relationships. In M.L. Knapp& G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook

of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 726-771). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Floyd, K. (1994). Communicating closeness among siblings: an application of the Gendered Closeness Perspective. Communication Research Reports, 13(1), 27-34.

Johnson, M.P. (1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships: Experiences of choice and constraint. In J.M. Adams &W.H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of commitement and relationship stability (pp. 73-87). New york: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Mottet, T. P. (1997). The Relationship between perceived understanding and self-discolusre in the sibling relationship. Communication Research Reports, 14(3), 338-3313.

Myers, S. A., & Members of COM 200 (2001). Relational maintenance behaviors in the sibling relationship. Communication Quarterly, 49(1), 19-34.

Myers, S. A. (1995). Perceived sibling use of relational communication messages and

sibling satisfaction, liking, and loving. Communication Research Reports, 16(4),

339-352.

Myers, S. A., & Weber, K. D. (2004). Preliminary developement of a measure of sibling relational maintenance behaviors: scale developement and initial findings. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 334-346.

Myers, S. A. (1998). Sibling communication satisfaction as a function of interpersonal solidarity, indiviualized trust, and self-disclosure. Sommunication Research Reports, 15(3), 309-317.

Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S. A., & Brann, M. (2007). Commitment and emotional closeness in the sibling relationship. Southern Communication Journal, 72(2), 169-183.

Rocca, K. A., & Martin, M. M. (1998). The relationship between willingness to communicate and solidarity with frequency, breadth, and depth of communication in the sibling relationship. Communication research reports, 15(1), 82-90.

Walster, E. & Walster, G.W. (1976). Interpersonal attraction. In B. Seidenberg & A.

Snadowsky (Eds.), Social Psychology: An introduction (pp. 279-308). New York:

Free Press.