- Email: [email protected]
Beyond Tattling: What Can Siblings Tell Us About Adolescent Behavior?
Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (2013) 151e153
www.jahonline.org Editorial
Beyond Tattling: What Can Siblings Tell Us About Adolescent Behavior? Siblings make a difference in one another’s lives, and increasingly researchers are including siblings in studies of the health and well-being of children and adolescents [1,2]. Although the literature on sibling relationships has examined both positive and negative aspects of these life-long relationships, researchers interested in problem behaviors have focused, almost exclusively, on how siblings serve as negative role models or promote the development of behaviors such as delinquency, alcohol and tobacco use. For example, Bank, Patterson, and Reid [3e5] have systematically examined longitudinal patterns of sibling interactions and their effects on antisocial behavior; other researchers have examined the role of siblings in adolescent delinquency, alcohol, and tobacco use [6e9] and risk for early sexual activity [10]. In other words, most researchers have considered older siblings to be part of the problem, but most have not considered that perhaps siblings might also be part of the solution; for exceptions, see [11e14]. The current study by Feinberg and colleagues has closed that gap by building on the strong foundation of evidence from previous research on siblings and problem behaviors that identified possible points of intervention based on the dynamic nature of sibling interactions, peer relationships, and parenting behaviors [15]. Competing Explanations and Study Design Feinberg and colleagues have developed an elegantly designed study that addresses some of the key limitations of previous research in this area. Turning first to their theoretical model, they test alternative explanations that appear in the literature regarding the role of sibling relationships in the development of problem behaviors. The model includes a test of the sibling deviance training idea such as the birds of a feather, partners in crime approach explored by Bullock and Dishion [16] and Slomkowski and colleagues [6]; the coercive style and impaired peer relations pathway proposed by Bank and colleagues [3,4]; and the role of impaired parenting common to a number of studies [9,14,17]. This is a welcome extension of previous research which has typically examined only one or two pathways of influence to explain how siblings’ behaviors and attitudes might affect the onset and growth in problem behaviors, thus leaving plausible sources of influence out of the model. Second, these researchers planned and implemented a welldesigned study which uses a randomized trial; this approach addresses a major limitation in many prior studies in which identified high-risk youth participate in a preventive program, thus
leaving researchers able to only speculate on how groups not receiving the program might or might not respond. The use of a well-matched control group is one feature of the study that provides increased confidence the obtained results did not occur due to unmeasured variables related to the nature of the sample or the environment. Third, this study adds to previous research in this area by using a community sample as compared to most intervention studies which target high-risk families or neighborhoods. Although the low base rate of problem behaviors was somewhat problematic e see discussion of floor effects e it is still noteworthy that they designed the intervention to occur prior to the older siblings’ transition into middle school or junior high, a time of increased risk for problem behaviors for many adolescents [7,13,16]. Results and Implications The authors provide a very cogent summary of the results, and I do not recap those here, but identify particularly noteworthy ones that may be useful to current and future researchers. Overall, the intervention demonstrated the utility of including siblings in interventions. I agree with the authors that “a sibling focus should be incorporated into youth and familyoriented prevention programs” [15]. The mixed results from the study are not surprising in light of what we know about sibling relationships and about the effectiveness of intervention studies in general, particularly the first test of a new program such as this. Some findings show promise, such as the consistent effects on siblings’ positive engagement with one another, and the improved academic skills reported by teachers. Furthermore, the apparent evocative effects shown in the support for Path 4 with reduced depressive symptoms for mothers suggests that spillover effects can be positive as well as negative [3,18]. The authors provide an insightful assessment of what might have gone better and what they might change in the next iteration of the program. Their fine-grained examination of the program highlights their awareness that no preventive intervention program is perfect; they acknowledge the need to make future improvements to obtain even better results, and perhaps even expand the scope of the target audience. For example, the lack of findings relative to conflict which was unexpected especially given that parents typically report that fighting among siblings is a problem. The authors note that conflict was quite low at the beginning of the study and stable across time and perhaps an assessment of problem solving strategies may be more informative for future research. Support for this idea is found in longitudinal
See Related Article p. 166 1054-139X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.011
152
Editorial / Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (2013) 151e153
research which finds that problem solving in sibling dyads explained unique variance in adolescents’ self-esteem over and above the variance explained by problem solving in marital and parent-child dyads [19]. The authors also note that concerns about sibling relationship dynamics may motivate parents to enroll their children in a sibling-focused program. Indeed, the focus on siblings may take the onus off of parents and let them participate in a more relaxed and engaged manner if they do not feel like their performance as a parent is the target of the intervention. I look forward to the researchers collecting follow-up data on these adolescents and their parents to see if the intervention has long-term positive effects into late adolescence and young adulthood.
high-risk situations. Currently, 27 states have policies that require or promote sibling placement. Special consideration should be given to foster parents who, with some targeted training, could work with siblings to promote positive relationships and social competencies which, in turn, could improve interactions within the foster home as well as with peers and teachers. With this study, Feinberg and colleagues have challenged the next generation of researchers to sharpen their focus on the antecedents and consequences of older siblings’ behaviors for younger siblings’ health and well-being across diverse contexts. I look forward to seeing the next stage of this project and how other researchers respond to information gleaned from these findings. Katherine Jewsbury Conger, Ph.D. Department of Human Ecology University of California Davis, California
Conclusions and Future Directions One future challenge, for these authors and for sibling researchers in general, is to implement the program across groups that allow for replication and for extension. First, replication could be accomplished with two groups similar to the participants in this study and then an extension with two groups who represent more high-risk populations - the focus of most prior research. This approach would be useful both for an increased understanding about the efficacy of the program and for testing the fidelity of the program delivery. In addition, this could help determine if there are components of SIBS that might be particularly effective, or especially problematic, in more highrisk settings. These high-risk settings could include adolescents with poorly functioning parents, deviant peers, poor school environments and poor neighborhoods. Ideally the extension could be carried out within school districts with similar educational standards. This approach could provide more evidence of the utility of the program and perhaps even provide the basis for the development of multiple versions ranging from the universal program delivered in this study up to an intensive, targeted intervention adapted for specific at-risk populations or for groups with specific cultural and religious practices and beliefs [20e22]. Universal programs such as the one designed and implemented by Feinberg and associates can lay the groundwork for all families to gain some benefits from the key components of the program, such as positive interactions between siblings and constructive problem-solving [19]. I conclude with a few specific suggestions for future research. For the next iteration of the SIBS program, the authors may also want to consider including a few items regarding the marital relationship. There is clear evidence that marital conflict is a source of stress for parents and this stress can spillover into parent-child and sibling relationships. It could be informative to include a few questions that evaluate the current state of the marriage (or nature of relationship between separated partners) to determine the effect of marital conflict on parent-child and sibling interactions [23,24]. In addition to including an assessment of the marriage, the authors might also consider what other groups might benefit from this program or a tailored adaptation. In particular, one group that might benefit from this intervention would be foster parents. There is growing awareness that most children benefit from being placed with siblings, except in cases of physical or sexual abuse, and many states are changing their policies to facilitate these placements [25,26]. Foster parents who agree to care for siblings may benefit from special training to handle sibling dyads or larger sibling groups; this is especially important as siblings placed in foster care are coming from
References [1] Kramer L, Conger KJ. What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. In: Kramer L, Conger KJ, eds. Siblings as agents of socialization. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009;126:1e12. [2] Kramer L, Bank L. Sibling relationship contributions to individual and family well-being: An introduction to the special issue. J of Fam Psychol 2005;19:483e5. [3] Patterson GR. Siblings: Fellow travelers in coercive family processes. Advances in study of Aggression 1984;1:173e215. [4] Bank L, Patterson GR, Reid JB. Negative sibling interaction patterns as predictors of later adjustment problems in adolescent and young adult males. In: Brody GH, ed. Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences. Advances in applied development psychology. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing; 1996:197e229. [5] Snyder J, Bank L, Burraston B. The consequences of antisocial behavior in older male siblings for younger brothers and sisters. J Fam Psychol 2005; 19:643e53. [6] Slomkowski C, Rende R, Conger KJ, et al. Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Develop 2001;72:271e83. [7] Craine JL, Tanaka TA, Nishina A, Conger KJ. Understanding adolescent delinquency: The role of older siblings’ delinquency and popularity with peers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 2009;55:436e53. [8] Fagan AA, Najman JM. The relative contributions of parental and sibling substance use to adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use. J Drug Issues 2005;35:869e84. [9] Whiteman SD, Jensen AC, Maggs JL. Similarities in adolescent siblings’ substance use: Testing competing pathways of influence. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2013;74:104e13. [10] East PL, Khoo ST. Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk. J Fam Psychol 2005;19:571e80. [11] Kennedy DE, Kramer L. Improving emotion regulation and sibling relationship quality: The More Fun with Brothers and Sisters Program. Family Relations 2008;57:568e79. [12] Conger, KJ, Conger, RD, Elder, GH Jr. Sibling relations during hard times. In Conger, RD, Elder, GH Jr, editors. Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America 1994, Hawthorne, New York: Aldine p. 235e252. [13] Stormshak EA, Bullock BM, Falkenstein CA. Harnessing the power of sibling relationships as a tool for optimizing social-emotional development. In: Kramer L, Conger KJ, eds. Siblings as Agents of Socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass; 2009;126:61e77. [14] Gass K, Jenkins J, Dunn J. Are siblings relationships protective? A longitudinal study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2005;48:167e75. [15] Feinberg ME, Solmeyer AR, Hostetler ML, et al. Siblings are special: Initial test of a new approach for preventing youth behavior problems. J Adolesc Health 2013;53:166e73. [16] Bullock BM, Dishion T. Sibling collusion and problem behavior in early adolescence: Toward a process model for family mutuality. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2002;30:143e53.
Editorial / Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (2013) 151e153 [17] Dafoe IN, Keijsers L, Hawk ST, et al. Siblings versus parents and friends: Longitudinal linkages to adolescent externalizing problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry; 2013. in press. [18] Jenkins JM, Simpson A, Dunn J, et al. The mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems. Child Develop 2005;76:24e39. [19] Conger KJ, Williams ST, Little WA, et al. Development of Mastery during Adolescence: The Role of Family Problem Solving. J of Health and Soc Beh 2009;50:99e114. [20] Bogenschnieder E, Corbett TJ. Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York: Routledge; 2010. [21] McGuire S, Shanahan L. Sibling experiences in diverse family contexts. Child Develop Perspect 2010;4:72e9. [22] Updegraff KA, McHale SM, Whiteman SD, et al. Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. J Fam Psychol 2005;19:512e22.
153
[23] Stocker C, Youngblade L. Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links with children’s sibling and peer relationships. J Family Psychol 1999;13: 598e609. [24] Katz LF, Gottman JM. Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In: McHale JP, Cowan PA, eds. Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families. New Directions for Child Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1996;74:57e76. [25] Herrick MA, Piccus W. Sibling connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster care system. Children and Youth Services Rev 2005;27:845e61. [26] Leathers SJ. Separation from siblings: Associations with placement adaptation and outcomes among adolescents in long-term foster care. Children Youth Services Rev 2005;27:793e819.
www.jahonline.org Editorial
Beyond Tattling: What Can Siblings Tell Us About Adolescent Behavior? Siblings make a difference in one another’s lives, and increasingly researchers are including siblings in studies of the health and well-being of children and adolescents [1,2]. Although the literature on sibling relationships has examined both positive and negative aspects of these life-long relationships, researchers interested in problem behaviors have focused, almost exclusively, on how siblings serve as negative role models or promote the development of behaviors such as delinquency, alcohol and tobacco use. For example, Bank, Patterson, and Reid [3e5] have systematically examined longitudinal patterns of sibling interactions and their effects on antisocial behavior; other researchers have examined the role of siblings in adolescent delinquency, alcohol, and tobacco use [6e9] and risk for early sexual activity [10]. In other words, most researchers have considered older siblings to be part of the problem, but most have not considered that perhaps siblings might also be part of the solution; for exceptions, see [11e14]. The current study by Feinberg and colleagues has closed that gap by building on the strong foundation of evidence from previous research on siblings and problem behaviors that identified possible points of intervention based on the dynamic nature of sibling interactions, peer relationships, and parenting behaviors [15]. Competing Explanations and Study Design Feinberg and colleagues have developed an elegantly designed study that addresses some of the key limitations of previous research in this area. Turning first to their theoretical model, they test alternative explanations that appear in the literature regarding the role of sibling relationships in the development of problem behaviors. The model includes a test of the sibling deviance training idea such as the birds of a feather, partners in crime approach explored by Bullock and Dishion [16] and Slomkowski and colleagues [6]; the coercive style and impaired peer relations pathway proposed by Bank and colleagues [3,4]; and the role of impaired parenting common to a number of studies [9,14,17]. This is a welcome extension of previous research which has typically examined only one or two pathways of influence to explain how siblings’ behaviors and attitudes might affect the onset and growth in problem behaviors, thus leaving plausible sources of influence out of the model. Second, these researchers planned and implemented a welldesigned study which uses a randomized trial; this approach addresses a major limitation in many prior studies in which identified high-risk youth participate in a preventive program, thus
leaving researchers able to only speculate on how groups not receiving the program might or might not respond. The use of a well-matched control group is one feature of the study that provides increased confidence the obtained results did not occur due to unmeasured variables related to the nature of the sample or the environment. Third, this study adds to previous research in this area by using a community sample as compared to most intervention studies which target high-risk families or neighborhoods. Although the low base rate of problem behaviors was somewhat problematic e see discussion of floor effects e it is still noteworthy that they designed the intervention to occur prior to the older siblings’ transition into middle school or junior high, a time of increased risk for problem behaviors for many adolescents [7,13,16]. Results and Implications The authors provide a very cogent summary of the results, and I do not recap those here, but identify particularly noteworthy ones that may be useful to current and future researchers. Overall, the intervention demonstrated the utility of including siblings in interventions. I agree with the authors that “a sibling focus should be incorporated into youth and familyoriented prevention programs” [15]. The mixed results from the study are not surprising in light of what we know about sibling relationships and about the effectiveness of intervention studies in general, particularly the first test of a new program such as this. Some findings show promise, such as the consistent effects on siblings’ positive engagement with one another, and the improved academic skills reported by teachers. Furthermore, the apparent evocative effects shown in the support for Path 4 with reduced depressive symptoms for mothers suggests that spillover effects can be positive as well as negative [3,18]. The authors provide an insightful assessment of what might have gone better and what they might change in the next iteration of the program. Their fine-grained examination of the program highlights their awareness that no preventive intervention program is perfect; they acknowledge the need to make future improvements to obtain even better results, and perhaps even expand the scope of the target audience. For example, the lack of findings relative to conflict which was unexpected especially given that parents typically report that fighting among siblings is a problem. The authors note that conflict was quite low at the beginning of the study and stable across time and perhaps an assessment of problem solving strategies may be more informative for future research. Support for this idea is found in longitudinal
See Related Article p. 166 1054-139X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.011
152
Editorial / Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (2013) 151e153
research which finds that problem solving in sibling dyads explained unique variance in adolescents’ self-esteem over and above the variance explained by problem solving in marital and parent-child dyads [19]. The authors also note that concerns about sibling relationship dynamics may motivate parents to enroll their children in a sibling-focused program. Indeed, the focus on siblings may take the onus off of parents and let them participate in a more relaxed and engaged manner if they do not feel like their performance as a parent is the target of the intervention. I look forward to the researchers collecting follow-up data on these adolescents and their parents to see if the intervention has long-term positive effects into late adolescence and young adulthood.
high-risk situations. Currently, 27 states have policies that require or promote sibling placement. Special consideration should be given to foster parents who, with some targeted training, could work with siblings to promote positive relationships and social competencies which, in turn, could improve interactions within the foster home as well as with peers and teachers. With this study, Feinberg and colleagues have challenged the next generation of researchers to sharpen their focus on the antecedents and consequences of older siblings’ behaviors for younger siblings’ health and well-being across diverse contexts. I look forward to seeing the next stage of this project and how other researchers respond to information gleaned from these findings. Katherine Jewsbury Conger, Ph.D. Department of Human Ecology University of California Davis, California
Conclusions and Future Directions One future challenge, for these authors and for sibling researchers in general, is to implement the program across groups that allow for replication and for extension. First, replication could be accomplished with two groups similar to the participants in this study and then an extension with two groups who represent more high-risk populations - the focus of most prior research. This approach would be useful both for an increased understanding about the efficacy of the program and for testing the fidelity of the program delivery. In addition, this could help determine if there are components of SIBS that might be particularly effective, or especially problematic, in more highrisk settings. These high-risk settings could include adolescents with poorly functioning parents, deviant peers, poor school environments and poor neighborhoods. Ideally the extension could be carried out within school districts with similar educational standards. This approach could provide more evidence of the utility of the program and perhaps even provide the basis for the development of multiple versions ranging from the universal program delivered in this study up to an intensive, targeted intervention adapted for specific at-risk populations or for groups with specific cultural and religious practices and beliefs [20e22]. Universal programs such as the one designed and implemented by Feinberg and associates can lay the groundwork for all families to gain some benefits from the key components of the program, such as positive interactions between siblings and constructive problem-solving [19]. I conclude with a few specific suggestions for future research. For the next iteration of the SIBS program, the authors may also want to consider including a few items regarding the marital relationship. There is clear evidence that marital conflict is a source of stress for parents and this stress can spillover into parent-child and sibling relationships. It could be informative to include a few questions that evaluate the current state of the marriage (or nature of relationship between separated partners) to determine the effect of marital conflict on parent-child and sibling interactions [23,24]. In addition to including an assessment of the marriage, the authors might also consider what other groups might benefit from this program or a tailored adaptation. In particular, one group that might benefit from this intervention would be foster parents. There is growing awareness that most children benefit from being placed with siblings, except in cases of physical or sexual abuse, and many states are changing their policies to facilitate these placements [25,26]. Foster parents who agree to care for siblings may benefit from special training to handle sibling dyads or larger sibling groups; this is especially important as siblings placed in foster care are coming from
References [1] Kramer L, Conger KJ. What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. In: Kramer L, Conger KJ, eds. Siblings as agents of socialization. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009;126:1e12. [2] Kramer L, Bank L. Sibling relationship contributions to individual and family well-being: An introduction to the special issue. J of Fam Psychol 2005;19:483e5. [3] Patterson GR. Siblings: Fellow travelers in coercive family processes. Advances in study of Aggression 1984;1:173e215. [4] Bank L, Patterson GR, Reid JB. Negative sibling interaction patterns as predictors of later adjustment problems in adolescent and young adult males. In: Brody GH, ed. Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences. Advances in applied development psychology. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing; 1996:197e229. [5] Snyder J, Bank L, Burraston B. The consequences of antisocial behavior in older male siblings for younger brothers and sisters. J Fam Psychol 2005; 19:643e53. [6] Slomkowski C, Rende R, Conger KJ, et al. Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Develop 2001;72:271e83. [7] Craine JL, Tanaka TA, Nishina A, Conger KJ. Understanding adolescent delinquency: The role of older siblings’ delinquency and popularity with peers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 2009;55:436e53. [8] Fagan AA, Najman JM. The relative contributions of parental and sibling substance use to adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use. J Drug Issues 2005;35:869e84. [9] Whiteman SD, Jensen AC, Maggs JL. Similarities in adolescent siblings’ substance use: Testing competing pathways of influence. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2013;74:104e13. [10] East PL, Khoo ST. Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk. J Fam Psychol 2005;19:571e80. [11] Kennedy DE, Kramer L. Improving emotion regulation and sibling relationship quality: The More Fun with Brothers and Sisters Program. Family Relations 2008;57:568e79. [12] Conger, KJ, Conger, RD, Elder, GH Jr. Sibling relations during hard times. In Conger, RD, Elder, GH Jr, editors. Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America 1994, Hawthorne, New York: Aldine p. 235e252. [13] Stormshak EA, Bullock BM, Falkenstein CA. Harnessing the power of sibling relationships as a tool for optimizing social-emotional development. In: Kramer L, Conger KJ, eds. Siblings as Agents of Socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass; 2009;126:61e77. [14] Gass K, Jenkins J, Dunn J. Are siblings relationships protective? A longitudinal study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2005;48:167e75. [15] Feinberg ME, Solmeyer AR, Hostetler ML, et al. Siblings are special: Initial test of a new approach for preventing youth behavior problems. J Adolesc Health 2013;53:166e73. [16] Bullock BM, Dishion T. Sibling collusion and problem behavior in early adolescence: Toward a process model for family mutuality. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2002;30:143e53.
Editorial / Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (2013) 151e153 [17] Dafoe IN, Keijsers L, Hawk ST, et al. Siblings versus parents and friends: Longitudinal linkages to adolescent externalizing problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry; 2013. in press. [18] Jenkins JM, Simpson A, Dunn J, et al. The mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems. Child Develop 2005;76:24e39. [19] Conger KJ, Williams ST, Little WA, et al. Development of Mastery during Adolescence: The Role of Family Problem Solving. J of Health and Soc Beh 2009;50:99e114. [20] Bogenschnieder E, Corbett TJ. Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York: Routledge; 2010. [21] McGuire S, Shanahan L. Sibling experiences in diverse family contexts. Child Develop Perspect 2010;4:72e9. [22] Updegraff KA, McHale SM, Whiteman SD, et al. Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. J Fam Psychol 2005;19:512e22.
153
[23] Stocker C, Youngblade L. Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links with children’s sibling and peer relationships. J Family Psychol 1999;13: 598e609. [24] Katz LF, Gottman JM. Spillover effects of marital conflict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In: McHale JP, Cowan PA, eds. Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families. New Directions for Child Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1996;74:57e76. [25] Herrick MA, Piccus W. Sibling connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster care system. Children and Youth Services Rev 2005;27:845e61. [26] Leathers SJ. Separation from siblings: Associations with placement adaptation and outcomes among adolescents in long-term foster care. Children Youth Services Rev 2005;27:793e819.