Gnaulati

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

1/12

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

2/12

(Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Goetting, 1986). Ittends to be lifes longest lasting relationship(Bank & Kahn, 1997, p. xv), and the sheer rangeand mix, not to mention primitiveness, of feelings

that can percolate between siblingshate, envy,admiration, compassion, sexual excitementarenot easily acknowledged or mastered.

Accordingly, this article explores and outlinestypes of presenting problems and family circum-stances where sibling therapy with children andadolescents can be advantageous. Concentratedwork with siblings may be what is called for toembolden sibling solidarity and support in thecontext of family dissolution and parental divorce(Schibuk, 1989) as well as to reduce noxious lev-els of conflict between siblings that can be a pre-cursor to aggressive acts outside the home (Gar-cia, Shaw, Winslow, & Yaggi, 2000). Arguably,

there is also a place for sibling therapy to addressproblems inherent in faulty selfother differentia-tion between siblings or when their relationship ischaracterized by excessive closeness or distance.However, it is important to remain mindful of thefact that interethnic and social class differencesdo exist in how power, control, and interconnect-edness between siblings are understood and ac-cepted. For instance, oftentimes in immigrantfamilies an older or more socially adept childwho has mastered the language and customs ofthe host culture is given an elevated position inthe family by virtue of his or her role as theso-called broker between the family and the

larger culture (Falicov, 1998). The familys sur-vival may be dependent on this childs culturalknow-how, and his or her elevated status withinthe family may be openly sanctioned by parentsand siblings alike.

Finally, as will be made evident, siblingtherapy has its limitations and may be contrain-dicated when large gaps in age or gross dissimi-larities between siblings in factors such as socio-emotional competency and activity level renderconjoint work counterproductive.

Family Dissolution and Reorganization

Sibling therapy may be uniquely suited to ad-dress the problems encountered by siblings un-dergoing family dissolution and reconstitution(Lewis, 1995; Rosenberg, 1980). Whether it bedivorce, inclusion in a blended family, or place-ment in foster care eventuating in family reuni-fication or adoption, throughout siblings com-

monly function as the unit of continuity (Schi-buk, 1989), and they may naturally pull togetherto preserve a sense of stability, predictability, andfamiliarity in their lives. Their readiness to show

mutual support and learn to maximize them-selves as a peer network (Lewis, 1986, p. 293)can enable them to psychologically prevail.Timely sibling interventions may be instrumentalin fortifying bonds to facilitate more optimal lifetransitions.

Divorce

Hetherington and Stanley-Hagen (1995) al-luded to how divorce can weigh heavily on thesibling relationship, sparking more rivalry andfriction, in an atmosphere of diminished contactand support from parents who may be invested in

actualizing dormant desires and forming newidentities. Custody arrangements often find sib-lings lumped together and shuttled from parent toparent as a unit, and heightened conflict from thisforced contact may be the upshot. Moreover, dur-ing and after parental divorce children may dis-place anger meant for parents onto each otherbecause of abandonment fears associated with di-rectly targeting parents. Unfairly subjecting a sib-ling to ones ill feeling may result in retaliationand rejection, but abandonment by him or her ishighly improbable. Yet the fear that parents mayphysically or emotionally withdraw after divorceis a real one, and children are wont to suppress

and rechannel negative emotions involving par-ents to elicit needed closeness, especially withfathers, because deprivation of paternal contactappears to be one of the legacies of divorce (Kiss-man, 1997). Furthermore, guilty feelings mayarise in relation to outward expression of nega-tive emotions at a parent who may have initiatedthe divorce and set unwelcome life changes inmotion yet who appears pained and burdened bythe exigencies of finding financial and emotionalsecurity after divorce.

Insofar as the above dynamics unfold sur-rounding divorce, sibling therapy can represent aprotected space for children to explore and ex-

press reactions to any felt deprivation of parentalattention and contact, to test out their ideas re-garding practical implementation of custody ar-rangements (i.e., alone time vs. shared time withcustodial and noncustodial parents), and to revealany abandonment fears and guilt connected totargeting negative emotions directly at parents.

Extending the Uses of Sibling Therapy

77

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

3/12

Other salient goals might be deflecting efforts tohold each other responsible for adverse outcomesof parental choices and experimenting with tact-ful ways of communicating dissatisfaction with

parents that might lessen the likelihood of aban-donment fears being realized.

Another valuable objective during intensivework with siblings encountering parental divorcepertains to the preservation of the so-called fam-ily memory. Fishman (1993) astutely indicatedthat siblings can be an anchor to the past indivorced families, serving to preserve memoriesthat parents may be keenly trying to forget. Sib-ling therapy may afford children with needed op-portunities to remember their family historiesmore completelywithout editing for fear ofalienating parentsthereby helping them feelgrounded in a personal past. Finally, treatment

can be brought to bear on upholding the impor-tance of children extricating themselves from pa-rental divorce matters and devoting time and en-ergy to pursuing age-appropriate developmentaltasks. When one or both parents are present intherapy, there is the risk that children will forgodiscussing life issues that are independent of theirparents and become embroiled in their parentsunresolved conflicts. In any event, family therapyinclusive of both divorced parents may be lessthan optimal, especially when young children areinvolved, because it can galvanize unrealistic fan-tasies that their parents will work out their dif-ferences and reunite. In this regard, a more ex-

clusive approach with siblings might counteractany denial-based fantasies of marital reunion aswell as help circumvent unhealthy concentrationon parents personal struggles, freeing childrenup to engage in therapeutic play and discuss ev-eryday concerns that are more in line with theirage and maturation level.

Foster Care

A variety of treatment considerations comeinto play vis-a-vis work with siblings in fostercare. First, given that rates of sibling separationin the foster care system can be as high as 75%

(Elstein, 1999), at a basic level, conjoint workwith siblings may afford them with sorely neededstructured quality time together. Granted, the lo-gistics of having siblings transported from differ-ent households may be complicated, and the po-tential rewards of sibling therapy have to exceedany hardship imposed on foster parents. When

placement is due to parental maltreatment, siblingtherapy might offer avenues for siblings to tran-scend patterns of denial, share historical accountsof abuse events, and provide mutual affirmation

of each others suffering. Indeed, the power in-herent in having the facts of abuse confirmed bya sibling should not be underestimated.

In addition, Lewis (1995) underscored the im-portance of blocking attempts by siblings toscapegoat and singularly blame anyone for thefamily breakup. Moreover, if family reunificationor joint placement of siblings is the ultimate goal,it may be critically important for siblings to graspthe real-life consequences of their actions for thedecision-making process (Lewis, 1995). For ex-ample, persistent acting out behavior on the partof a sibling might undermine any chances for ajoint placement. If the prospect for family reuni-

fication is slim, sibling therapy may offer occa-sions to grieve the attendant losses (e.g., loss ofthe familiar family unit; sudden or fading contactwith parents or other family members; loss offamily home, neighborhood, and friends). Whenthere is protracted uncertainty as to placementobjectives and children revolve in and out of fos-ter care, siblings can use therapy to process thefluctuations in hope and despair that often ensue.If adoption proceedings are underway, siblingscan use therapy to explore such key factors asabandonment fears, reactions to the possibility ofbeing adopted separately versus jointly, and anyapprehensions or aspirations surrounding adop-

tive care. Finally, the sabotaging behavior some-times shown by one sibling as a joint or groupadoptive placement is being finalized, potentiallyjeopardizing collective transition to a suitablehome, can be productively addressed in siblingtherapy:

George and Dans foster mother of 5 years, Mary, wasclosing in on adopting them when the behavior of 12-year-oldGeorge suddenly deteriorated. He started openly refusing todo his chores, took the keys to the family car and backed itinto a wall, and was suspended from school for fighting, all ina 4-week period. Mary tearfully announced to the therapistduring a parent session that she was exasperated by George sbehavior and was seriously considering only adopting 15-year-old Dan, a prospect that both George and Dan were wellaware of.

During sibling therapy Dan outwardly expressed his angerat George for making it so we wont be together and re-minded him of all the hard times they had faced in foster carebefore finally being placed with Mary, who had devoted her-self to their welfare. Dan reminded George of how she paidfor and supported his music lessons, transported him to choirpractice, arranged for them to attend summer camp every

Enrico Gnaulati

78

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

4/12

year, and put up with his bed wetting, adding You must bestupid to want to throw all this away. George insisted he washappy living with Mary and was confused by his own behav-ior. The therapist suggested that perhaps in an odd waythrough his behavior George was communicating that he had

some reservations about living in a more permanent arrange-ment with Dan. This comment led George to bashfully ac-knowledge that he was not coordinated like Dan or as popularwith friends, hinting at anger over this. He went on to speakof Dan preferring to play ball with one of the other fosterchildren in the home and of his feeling left out. Dan emotion-ally retorted, Left out! I will be the one who is left out ifyoure sent away to some other home.

In the weeks that followed, George was encouraged toopenly express any anger he might have at Dan, and heseemed to grasp that if he expressed this anger more indirectlyby acting the fool there was a serious risk that they wouldbe placed separatelysomething he ultimately did not want.Dan was also instrumental in helping George grasp that hedeserved to have a nice home and that they had sufferedenough. Georges acting out behavior diminished, and heand Dan were eventually adopted by Mary.

Sibling Aggression

It is well documented that friction and combat-iveness are endemic to the sibling relationship.Adler (1931) alluded to how rivalry for parentalaffection eclipses any affiliative impulses sib-lings felt for one another. Verbal and physicalaggression may be more prevalent in the siblingrelationship than in the parentchild relationship(Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) or betweenfriends (Felson, 1983). In one survey, over ayear-long time span 40% of children had ag-gressed against a sibling using an object and 82%

had perpetrated some form of violence on a sib-ling (Straus et al., 1980). An in-home observa-tional study of preschool-age siblings conductedby Berndt and Bulleit (1985) revealed high ratesof aggressive interactionsan average of eight inan hour-long period. Furthermore, older adoles-cents reported frequent physical altercations withsiblings close in age (Goodwin & Roscoe, 1990).Such findings have prompted one researcher toconclude, Sibling conflict is so common that itsoccurrence is taken for granted (Newman, 1994,p. 123) and to question the relatively lax attitudetoward sibling violence in American culture ascompared with the prohibitions against violence

in other relationships. Arguably, sibling abuse isthe most underreported form of abuse.

However, conflict and even combativeness inthe sibling relationship need not signify pathol-ogy and warrant professional help. Bank andKahn (1997) pointed to the potential positive ef-fects of aggressive sibling interactions: Fighting,

punching, even drawing blood can help emotion-ally starved children and adolescents to know thatthey are alive, by drawing a reaction from a fa-miliar and intimate enemy (p. 198). These au-

thors highlighted how physical altercations mayindirectly satisfy needs for bodily contact andrepresent desperate attempts to engender emo-tional intensity and aliveness. More often thannot, fights between siblings cease quickly, withlittle physical harm (Raffaelli, 1992). Also, it isnot uncommon for sibling conflicts to be almostformulaic in nature, with predictable insults andretorts having a reassuring quality (Bank & Kahn,1997). The sibling relationship can be a safe do-main in which to give expression to hostile feel-ings, because siblings often know in advance howaggression will be expressed and received and towhat extreme it will be taken. Besides, because

siblings are generally not at liberty to end rela-tionships with each other, at least before adult-hood, abandonment or outright rejection in theface of open displays of anger are unlikely (New-man, 1994). Furthermore, in the act of disagree-ing and opposing each other, especially duringadolescence, siblings may be articulating andconsolidating personal boundaries, striving to dif-ferentiate themselves from each other and upholdtheir own uniqueness (Raffaelli, 1992). And ofcourse childrens possible lack of skill or awk-wardness at expressing positive feelings may bemisconstrued by parents and therapists alike asevidence of a hostile sibling attachment in need

of psychological intervention. In short, whentherapy is being sought to correct undue discordin the sibling relationship, a thorough assessmentis necessary to ascertain to what degree aggres-sive exchanges are relatively benign and expect-able versus noxiousmaintaining or undermin-ing sibling bonds.

What follows are factors signaling when ag-gression in the sibling relationship has becomeproblematic and how focused work with siblingsmight have a beneficial effect. Therapeutic inter-ventions may be called for when physical aggres-sion has become the predominant approach toinitiating spirited interaction and physical close-

ness. This situation has relevance for male sib-lings because homophobia among children can bestrong, and for boys to overtly desire tender con-tact and vital emotional bonds is to court peerostracizing. Male siblings who are unsettled byneeds for affectionate contact may overcompen-sate and engage in overly rough play to project an


79

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

5/12

image of traditional masculinity. Also, in familieswhere pronounced conflict prevails and physical-ity mainly takes aggressive forms, siblings maylack exposure to demonstrations of genuine af-

fection and lack the finesse necessary to conveywarmth in their actions.

Consequently, with combative siblings it is illadvised for the clinician to make relinquishmentof aggressive contact an immediate goal. Such astep may deprive siblings of the only manner ofphysical closeness available to them given theirlimited behavioral repertoire. Hence, one inter-vention that has merit is reframing hitting andforceful touch in terms of ambivalent or dis-guised attempts at a hug or caress, for purposes ofevoking and affirming latent affectionate ges-tures. Acknowledgment and proper expression ofneeds for closeness between male siblings can be

a powerful antidote to hyperaggressiveness.Greater adeptness at distinguishing between hos-tile and affectionate intent, and behaving ac-cordingly, can defuse tension as well as reducethe confusion and muddled communications ex-istent when these emotional states are poorlydifferentiated:

Sibling therapy was initiated with 7-year-old Bob and his11-year-old brother, Mike, because of their apparent inabilityto play cooperatively, their frequent bickering, and their pro-pensity to aggressively lash out at each other even over minorconcerns. Mike was known to dominate Bob, carrying rough-housing too far and often ruthlessly denouncing him as acrybaby when injuries were inevitably inflicted. Bob de-lighted in surreptitiously provoking Mike and witnessing himbeing chastised by their parents.

During one session, Mike insisted on being allowed towrestle with Bob on the office floor. The therapist permittedthis as long as certain rules were followed. They had towrestle on top of couch cushions and automatically becomestatues when the therapist, or either of them, yelled freeze.The therapist explained to them that a freeze could only becalled when one or both of them were being harmed by theothers roughness. Also, the therapist suggested, and Mikeand Bob excitedly agreed, that whoever was able to keep fromsmiling when the therapist made faces while both boys werestill statues could initiate the first wrestling move, unob-structed, when the therapist announced unfreeze.

Most of the wrestling moves both boys used involved wrap-ping an arm around a neck, a sort of hug hold, and thetherapist commented that maybe there were times they reallyfelt like hugging rather than wrestling. Both boys laughed andbegan playfully hugging each other. Later, the therapist sug-gested to Mike that sometimes it appeared as if he did notknow whether he wanted to hit Bob or embrace him. Mikesmiled and executed a fake punch stopping just short of Bobsarm, eventually patting Bob on the back. When the wrestlingrecommenced after unfreeze was announced, whoever wasawaiting the execution of a wrestling move by the other wasin the habit of clasping his hands behind his back, in a highly

vulnerable position. Without exception, the brother who wasapplying the first move did not exploit the other s vulnerabil-ity. The therapist proffered, I can see that you two must likeeach other to not want to take advantage when the other isopen to attack with his hands behind his back. Also, on

several occasions Bob took it upon himself to call freezewhen Mike was excessively forceful. Mike accepted this anddid not deride Bob for being weak, which the therapist openlyrecognized: Mike, look how good you are at respecting Boband not putting him down when he lets you know you arebeing too rough. Both brothers requested to play the wres-tling game for weeks thereafter, and a general abatement inthe intensity and frequency of their combativeness duringsessions and at home ensued.

As the above clinical vignette alludes to, sib-lings are wont to vacillate between enmity andwarmth, and upsurges in aggression may be bestexplained in terms of the frustration often gener-ated by internally managing such countervailingimpulses. As earlier addressed, the sibling rela-

tionship may carry a strong valence for conten-tiousness; however, this is not to the exclusion ofsalutary characteristics. Prochaska and Prochaska(1985) investigated preschool-aged childrensperspectives on conflicts with siblings and dis-covered that, in actuality, siblings were twice aslikely to have a good time with each other eachday as they were to fight. There is also evidencesuggesting a steady habit by preadolescent andadolescent siblings to turn to each other as con-fidants (Lamb & Sutton-Smith, 1982). In addi-tion, older siblings can serve as potent teachersfor younger siblings (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993)and spontaneously console and soothe them as

infants (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982). Parentheti-cally, several observers have commented on howdiscord and ambivalence emerges in the siblingrelationship as a function of the presence or ab-sence of parents (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Stew-art & Marvin, 1984). When outside of the pur-view of parents, siblings can be freed from com-peting for parental attention or from having topsychologically gear up to face perceived imbal-ances in parental affection, allowing for morelow-key sibling interactions, void of pronouncedambivalent feelings. This situation has obviousramifications for sibling therapy insofar as chil-dren may be less overwhelmed by polarized emo-

tions and better predisposed to express and psy-chologically integrate such reactions without thepresence of a parent. Of course, this presupposesthat the therapist is not a catalyst for competitivefeelings to the same extent that a parent is. Thefollowing clinical example, pertaining to thetreatment of Mike and Bob, earlier mentioned,

Enrico Gnaulati

80

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

6/12

illustrates the utility of sibling interventions forenabling children to acknowledge and grapplewith contradictory feelings that frequently run thegamut from murderous wishes to kindheartedness:

Eight months into therapy, during one session Mike spon-taneously declared that he wanted to bury Bob under cush-ions that were in the office and have him play dead. In aneffort to draw the play out, the therapist suggested that per-haps Mike should have a funeral service for Bob and make upa eulogy. Mike took to this idea, and Bob agreed to play alongon condition that during his turn the roles would be reversed.Mike proceeded to utter, Today we are gathered to mourn thedeath of Bob. We do not know how he died, but we suspecthe was killed by somebody. Bob will be missed. He had a lotof friends and was fun to play with. We ask that you bow yourheads and pray that Bob go to heaven because he deserves togo there. When he was finished, Mike pretended to dig updirt and cover over Bob. Bob gleefully approached his turnand acted out a similar scenario in which Mike s death wasprobably due to murder, and in paying tribute to his brother,he stated that Mike would be missed because of how cleverand funny he was. Bob also thought that Mike ought to enterheaven.

A frequently overlooked source of disharmonybetween siblings pertains to parents oblivious-ness to developmental differences that existmixed with rigid expectations to interact and playin an egalitarian manner. When there are wideage gaps and developmental incongruencies be-tween siblings, yet they are expected to sharecommon space, possessions, and interests, all thewhile exhorted to just get along, frustration andresentment between siblings can fester. Obvi-ously, under such circumstances parent sessions

are pivotal to elucidate and address salient devel-opmental concerns that might pit one siblingagainst another (e.g., a teenage daughters over-looked need for added privacy, the unavailabilityof toys and games that fit siblings differentialages and developmental levels, and chore assign-ments based on age and physical mastery). How-ever, insofar as children internalize parental lackof appreciation for developmental differencesand act this out in their dealings with one another,sibling therapy may be in order to address theresentment ensuing from ingrained unrealistic ex-pectations. Mutual recognition of age-basedknowledge and skills, even in matters as funda-

mental as how children of different ages construeor invent rules to games, can go a long way toreduce frustration. Interpretations capturing howolder siblings possibly used to be like theiryounger siblings in their fabrication of rules,ways of expressing themselves, and so forth si-multaneously build empathy for younger siblings

and extol older siblings for their advanced capa-bilities (e.g., Brian, I bet when you wereyounger like Frank you made up your own rulesso that you stood a better chance of winning.

Now that you are older you see how most gameshave clear rules and when you win by sticking tothe rules it really means something).

All in all, efficacious handling of combative-ness and discord between siblings in therapy ne-cessitates the clinician discriminating betweenwhat Bank and Kahn (1997) referred to as ritu-alistic harassment as opposed to a humiliatingattack and discerning when to permit occasionsfor sibling generated resolutions versus when touse protective measures. Ritualistic attacks in-volve well-worn rules of engagement whereby itis within the reach of children to arrive at optimalsolutions on their own, building social compe-

tence that might be transferred to dealings withpeers. The role of the therapist here is more of acaring observer who verbally clarifies and af-firms appropriate displays of anger (e.g., I guessMarianne is trying to tell you that when you ig-nore her when she is talking she finds herselfgetting mad at you) and draws out muted desiresfor reparation (Octavio, you just looked over inSharons direction and smiled. Does that meanyou are ready to make up?).

However, when one sibling, usually the elderchild, exerts his or her superior strength, linguis-tic skill, and cognitive know-how in exploitativeways, the therapist will need to take a more active

stance. Bennett (1990) spelled out the dangersinherent in assuming that siblings are evenlymatched in strength and abilities and how a lais-sez-faire stance by parents can degenerate intolearned helplessness on the part of the weakersibling. The therapist has to be alert not to repli-cate such injurious permissiveness, actively inter-vening to render destructive attacks more con-structive. This intervention might entail empa-thetically validating the underlying hatefulfeelings being expressed by the sibling who is onthe attack while coaxing him or her to rewordderisive or disparaging statements to raise thelikelihood of him or her being heard out and

taken notice of by the targeted sibling (e.g.,Francisco, by calling your brother a little brain-less twerp I can see that you are very angry withhim, probably because you cannot have a decentgame of monopoly because of his understandingof the rules being less advanced. Hes only 6years old after all! But are there words you can


81

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

7/12

use that are less hurtful that might make it easierfor Juan to hear you out?). The direct offering ofalternative expressions may be necessary todramatize the difference between communicating

dislike of a siblings actions without assailing hisor her character (e.g., One way to tell Juan ofyour frustration in a way that he might listen is tosay that when he gives up before the game is overor invents his own rules it gets you mad).Prompting the aggressor to empathetically iden-tify with his or her wounded sibling offers prom-ise in decreasing future gestures of contempt anddevaluation, because these tend to occur against abackdrop of alienation and disconnectedness(e.g., How do you imagine Maria feels whenyou call her fat and ugly? Can you relate to Mariawhen she tells you she feels hurt and rejected?Have you ever felt this way? I guess you and

Maria have something in common.). These in-terventions center on verbal aggression. Whenphysical aggression erupts, parental assistance,time outs, and even physical restraint might benecessary for safety reasons.

Faulty Sibling SelfOther Differentiation

Bonds that permit mutual recognition of simi-larities and differences, as well as negotiation ofhealthy levels of emotional closeness and dis-tance, are often underdeveloped in the troubledsibling relationship. Indeed, it may be that socialand demographic transformations affecting the

American family are such that selfother bound-ary concerns will feature more prominently in thelives of many siblings. There is a trend towardparents having fewer children and spacing themcloser in age, resulting in swelling numbers ofso-called high-access siblings who have commonfriends, are enrolled in the same school, partici-pate in the same recreational activities, share abedroom or a bed, wear each others clothes, andso forth, all of which can complicate selfotherdifferentiation (Bank & Kahn, 1997). In addition,there are emotional ramifications associated withchildren often spending more time with siblingsthan parents and frequently being expected to

caretake younger siblings because of role over-load or distrust of extra-familial caregivers on thepart of parents. In actuality, for some childrenand adolescents the process of differentiatingoneself from an older, parentified sibling mayeven eclipse in importance its parallel in the par-entchild relationship. Furthermore, siblings

typically feel compelled to tightly coalesce whenconfronted by family dissolution or when peerrelations have been disrupted by residence andschool changes prompted by parents whose ca-

reers or lifestyles require geographical mobility.Under such circumstances, the nature of the sib-ling alliance may be such that meaningful con-flict and articulation of differences are stifled. Inaddition, many parents assume an equality at allcosts stance with their children in matters ofdiscipline, displays of affection, allocation ofchores, the bestowing of gifts, and the likeswhat Mander (1991) dubbed scrupulously fairparentingwhich can leave children feeling in-distinguishable. Needless to say, it behooves cli-nicians to define optimal and faulty levels of selfother differentiation and devise interventions totreat the former. In this regard, I will discuss two

clinical phenomena whose presence usually indi-cate problematic psychological fusion in the sib-ling relationship: (a) compulsive mimicry andanti-mimicry and (b) exploitative idealizations.

Compulsive Mimicry and Anti-Mimicry

Some of the most heated arguments involvingsiblings are triggered by unilateral or joint accu-sations of being a so-called copycat. Intransigentdebates can ensue regarding the likes of who wasfirst to think of ordering french fries, declare aninterest in Pokemon, or prefer the guitar over anyother musical instrument. There may be sudden

gestures to change a desired preference or goback on a decision in order to preserve onesindividuality or save face after being rebuffedonce again for wanting to model oneself after asibling.

Naturally, however, not all mimicking behav-ior involving siblings indicates underlying prob-lems based on overidentification or staunchly de-fending personal boundaries by shaming anotherfor adopting similar likes or dislikes. Dunn andKendrick (1982), in their well-regarded researchon preschool-age siblings, found that there wasless combativeness in the relationship when imi-tative behavior was present, presumably because

such behavior fosters a sense of we-ness, ortogetherness. Also, when a younger sibling ech-oes the feelings of an older sibling, adopts a simi-lar stance, or copies a behavior, the older siblingmay draw strength from the heightened status thisbrings. In fact, the resultant sense of power mayhelp correct any lasting sense of inferiority asso-

Enrico Gnaulati

82

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

8/12

ciated with having being dethroned by the birthof a younger sibling and forced to forgo a moreexclusive parental bond.

Nevertheless, when there is a breakdown in

selfother differentiation such that a sibling be-comes fixated on copying the behaviors and atti-tudes of another somewhat automatically andnoncritically, what might be called compulsivemimicry may be operating. This is where imita-tion-of-another overshadows assertion-of-self,and it has attendant risks and anxieties. Perhapsthere is even a sense that the only way to feelconnected to a sibling is to become like him orher or that the only way to win favor with asibling is to model oneself after him or her. Ben-eficial interventions are those that affirm inde-pendent thinking (Maria, I noticed that you justdisagreed with your sister over who was the best

rap artist. I can see you are thinking for yourselfand are less frightened to express interests andpreferences that are different from your sisters),block automatic imitative behavior (e.g., John,you were so quick to chose cards as your favoritegame after Mary indicated this was her favorite.Do you really like cards that much? Besidescards, what other games do you like?), and openup new avenues to endear oneself to a siblingother than overidentifying with him or her (e.g.,Francisco, maybe you are worried if you stopagreeing with Mario all the time hell stop likingyou? Mario, does Francisco have to share yourenthusiasm for Pokemon for you to like him?

Check it out, if he suddenly got interested in adifferent card game then you would have a widerrange of games to play together).

Compulsive anti-mimicry also constitutes an-other area of ill-formed selfother boundaries insibling relationships. This is where one or moresiblings rigidly refuse to share any similar habitsor attitudes and react harshly to being the objectof imitation. Oftentimes these behaviors emergein older children whose younger siblings turn tothem with identity hunger because of the unavail-ability of parents for affiliation and modeling.The frequency and intensity of the younger sib-lings imitative gestures arouse fears of engulf-

ment and de-differentiation in the older sibling,inciting him or her to act dismissively (e.g.,When are you going to stop being such a copy-cat and get a life?). Compulsive anti-mimicrycan also emerge among high-access siblings,where children are expected to share a commonbed or bedroom, friends, pastimes, clothes, toys,

and so forth. To preserve personal boundariesthat are perpetually in danger and to protect frag-ile self-cohesion, there is the felt need to defineoneself in opposition to the other.

Hence, some interventions that offer promisewhen anti-mimicry leads to sibling rejection andalienation are as follows: reframing imitative be-havior in complementary terms (e.g., When Bobcopies your basketball moves, in a way he is let-ting you know that he thinks you are cool and hewants to play basketball just like you) and am-plifying similarities to engender a sense of to-getherness (So one thing you have in common isthat you both want your first car to be a FordMustang). Nevertheless, the therapist needs tobe mindful of how explicit confirmation of agiven siblings uniqueness may be necessary topreempt defensive declarations of what sets him

or her apart and better tolerate shared character-istics with another sibling (e.g., Bob, you do nothave to convince me that you have differenttastes in music than your sister. I know this. Forinstance, you like Bon Jovi and she doesnt. Butit seems that you both think Prince is great).

Exploitative Idealizations

Exploitative idealizations are those in which anolder sibling, or one with a stronger personalityor greater socioemotional sophistication, de-mands extreme loyalty and subservience from ayounger sibling, or one with a weaker personality

or less developed socioemotional competencies.This can be framed as a deficit in selfother dif-ferentiation inasmuch as the domineering childtreats his or her sibling as an extension of theselfvoid of separate needs, wishes, and inter-estswhose primary function is to bolster his orher grandeur. The domineering child may exertand perpetuate control over the sibling who ide-alizes him or her by insisting that the latter par-ticipate in games and pursue activities that playinto his or her strengths. Here, not only is theindividuality of the idealizing sibling subverted,but he or she is also kept feeling inferior. In fact,clinicians often neglect to see how living in the

shadow of a sibling who is bent on defeating anddominating can contribute to states of acute frus-tration, low self-regard, and self-deprecatorythinking:

Five-year-old John was brought in for therapy because ofuncontrollable temper tantrums that were triggered when hewas confronted for misbehaving by his parents or preschool


83

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

9/12

teacher. The mere mention that he had failed to behave wellwould result in John crying inconsolably, hiding under tables,and acting destructively. To make matters worse, Johns ex-pressive language and speech articulation were delayed andhe had extreme difficulty finding words and making himself

understood, especially when seized with emotion. In the midstof his frustration and anguish, John was known to make self-denigrating remarks, such as Im stupid or Im retarded.

Johns older sister, Frances, was 6 years his senior. She wasa gifted student with a sophisticated vocabulary. Frances rou-tinely corrected John when he mispronounced words or usedthem wrongly and snubbed him when he failed to share herenthusiasm to play games that she excelled at. John worshipedthe ground that Frances walked on and overtly showed hisexcitement to play with her during sibling sessions, whichFrances denounced as a form of hyper behavior by someweirdo. Frances saw no inherent inequity in expecting Johnto play games geared for pre-adolescent children and seemedto take delight in exhibiting her dominance over John at thesegames.

After a long abatement in Johns tantrums, a year or so intotreatment he came to a session crying, repeatedly stating that

he was stupid and a retard. The therapist pointed out toFrances that these were words that she often used to describeJohn and that since he liked her so much maybe he wasstarting to really believe her. Frances rejoinder was that Johnreally was stupid because he was hyper all the time andprovoked her to hit him, with her being the one inevitablysingled out by her parents for being in the wrong. The thera-pist openly challenged her use of the word stupid and sug-gested that acting too excited would be more accurate.Frances began crying, plaintively stating that nobody was onher side, that ever since John was born her parents favoredhim, and that she wished she had a little sister, rather than alittle brother, because then there might be someone in thefamily who understood her and made her feel less alone.

The therapist commented that perhaps Frances thought hewas taking Johns side and that this left her feeling out in thecold like she must have felt when John was born. Frances

tearfully acknowledged that her childhood was never the sameafter John was born. After empathizing with how alone shefelt then and now, the therapist added that maybe Frances wasstill angry at John for being born and stealing away so muchparental attention. Her mood lightened and she agreed. Sens-ing a readiness to accept that her belittling statements directedat John might, in part, explain his low self-regard, the thera-pist continued: Frances, you have every right to feel sad andmad over losing out on your parents attention because Johncame along, but theres got to be a way you can express thiswithout damaging Johns self-esteem by calling him nameslike stupid and retard. She quietly nodded her head.

After quietly listening to the exchange between Frances andthe therapist, unsolicited, with a hurt expression on his face,John told Frances quite directly that he was tired of beingcalled names by her. Frances showed visible signs of inhib-iting herself from making an insulting comment in response.

Smiling, the therapist indicated to Frances that it was going tobe a challenge for her to express her anger at John withouttossing arrows at him, but that given her intelligence andbroad vocabulary he was confident she could access less hurt-ful words.

The dynamics sketched out in the above clini-cal example reflect how an older sibling can

sometimes feel entitled to control and dominate ayounger sibling, perhaps as punishment for hav-ing usurped his or her special position with par-ents simply by being born. Younger siblings

naturally imitate, model themselves after, andlook up to older siblings, and the temptation ofthe latter to abuse this is great in cases whereolder siblings experience lingering resentmentover the birth of a younger sibling. Therapeuticinterventions that zero in on persistent unarticu-lated acrimony older siblings might experienceover the birth of younger siblings can reduce thepotential for such emotions being acted out in theform of domination over and obliviousness to theneeds of younger siblings.

Work with sibling dyads imbued with powerdifferentials of the sort mentioned is often ener-gized when the younger or disempowered child

begins to assert his or her autonomy and moveoutside of the sphere of influence of the older orempowered child. In the act of de-idealizing theolder or empowered sibling, it is incumbent onthe therapist to be sensitive to ways in which theyounger or historically disempowered siblingmay resort to outright rejection or devaluation ofthe formeronce all good, he or she becomesperceived as all bad. Clinicians need to affirmthe less dominant siblings need to extricate him-or herself from the more dominant one and con-solidate peer friendships without entirely shun-ning the former (i.e., Boris, I know that you areexcited about making friends who are at your

level and want to spend less time with yourbrother, but does that erase the good times youhave had and can still have with him?), helpflesh out any feelings of rejection and retaliatoryimpulses the older or more dominant sibling mayfeel in the de-idealization process (i.e., Olivia,now that your sister follows you around less andis reluctant to play games you are good at how doyou feel? Olivia, you called your sister dumbwhen she refused to play games she knew youwere likely to win. Your sister is starting to com-municate to you that she has separate needs anddoes not like to play games that she knows shewill lose at. Maybe underneath you feel hurt be-

cause she is not the sister she used to be?), and,ultimately, assist the de-idealized sibling withadapting to having less control (i.e., Carlos, youryounger brother would prefer to play a differentgame that he is good at. Playing this game withhim could end up being a real competition so thatif you won it would be a victory you really

Enrico Gnaulati

84

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

10/12

earned, and if you lost, perhaps it will be lesspainful because you will have lost to someonewho is a skilled player).

Initial Resistance

It is not uncommon for clinicians to meet withsurprisingly little resistance when exploring sib-ling therapy as an option with family members.Seldom do siblings have occasion to be alone ina setting where their relationship is the focalpoint, and they may relish the opportunity toshare thoughts and feelings without parentaloversight (Ranieri & Pratt, 1978). Parentheti-cally, as a rule, the stark frankness with whichyoung siblings often communicate (Cicirelli,1976) can be capitalized on in therapy to engen-der and temper honest emotional exchanges.

Also, siblings who are close in age to an identi-fied patient and circulate in the same socialgroups as him or her may be invested in theirsiblings recovery because of the stigma attachedto being the brother or sister of a troubled child.In addition, siblings might be more willing toenter treatment together because the implicationis that the problem does not lie with any one childin the family. However, in situations where chil-dren are lumped together by parents, expected tobe inseparable or to renounce any differences andjust get along, sibling therapy may be resisted asyet another unpleasant joint activity.

Primary caregivers may be receptive to the

therapist pointing out the sibling dimensions to achilds problems and embrace sibling therapy be-cause of the tacit recognition that the therapist isnot holding them solely responsible for causingor ameliorating a childs problems. Indeed, par-ents may feel that they have much to gain fromimprovements in sibling relationships becausestudies indicate that sibling conflict is one of theforemost childrearing concerns cited by parentsand is a prominent source of stress for them(Perozynski & Kramer, 1999).

If resistance to sibling therapy emerges, it islikely to center on fears that the therapist willunite with the siblings and place them in a one-

up position over parents (Fishman, 1993). Also,parents might fear being cast solely in a negativelight or might dread the divulgence of family se-crets if siblings are seen alone. Joining withparents during regularly scheduled adjunctivesessions, addressing confidentiality concerns,showing respect for parents position of authority

in the family, or even extending invitations toparents to quietly sit in on sibling sessions, asproposed by Lewis (1986), can diminish any po-tential for resistance.

Contraindications

Rosenberg (1980) astutely pointed out that sib-ling therapy is ill advised when there is little con-gruence in the pivotal developmental tasks facedby different siblings. A family may contain sub-groups of younger kids and older kids, with theformer being bent on firming up dependent tieswith family members and the latter being bent onloosening and reworking them. Large age gapsbetween siblings can result in them acting likemembers of different generations (Bank &Kahn, 1997, p. 9) with dissimilar interests, com-

munication styles, and ways of interpreting socialinteractions, such that ongoing conjoint workmight be counterproductive. However, as com-mented on earlier in the article, there may bemerit to short-term work with developmentallyincongruent siblings that centers on building mu-tual acceptance of age-based capacities, therebyreducing the frustration inherent in unrealistic ex-pectations and comparisons.

Sizable differences in developmental level be-tween siblings can also affect the way in whichthe confidentiality arrangement is understood andhonored. Younger or less developmentally ad-vanced siblings might feel morally bound to in-

form parents about what is discussed in siblingsessions, use confidential disclosures to tattle onolder siblings, and be less appreciative of privacyconcerns in general, which can lead to guarded-ness and possible resentment on the part of olderor more developmentally advanced siblings. Inshort, the prognosis for sibling therapy may beweak when developmental discrepancies betweensiblings hinder consistent mutual regard for theimportance of confidentiality.

Another exclusionary criterion pertains towhen one sibling embodies an undercontrolledinteractional style and the other enduringly be-haves in an overcontrolled fashion. When there

are marked discrepancies of this sort, the direc-tive therapeutic measures necessary to containthe behavior of the undercontrolled sibling mightbe experienced as overwhelming by the overcon-trolled sibling and inhibit him or her from open-ing up. Conversely, the more permissive ap-proach necessary to engage the overcontrolled


85

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

11/12

sibling could potentially lead to troublesome lev-els of excitement and disorganized behavior inthe undercontrolled sibling.

Finally, intensive work with siblings may be

contraindicated when a younger or more submis-sive sibling idealizes an older or more domineer-ing one who displays pronounced oppositional orantisocial tendencies. This contraindication is es-pecially true in situations where the intensity andexclusivity of the younger or weaker siblingsidealization precludes him or her from formingattachments with more positive role models.Moreover, children and adolescents given to an-tisocial or oppositional behavior often look for aso-called partner in crime to alleviate any shameassociated with being perceived as singularlybad or any guilt ensuing from their misdeeds.The submissive sibling, craving recognition from

his or her idealized yet behaviorally disturbedcounterpart, may be recurrently tempted to besuch a partner in crime. When assessing any po-tential payoff to initiating sibling work under theaforementioned circumstances, clinicians have tobe alert to the possibility of a contagion effect,where the non-behaviorally disturbed child feelscompelled to show allegiance to or win favorfrom his or her behaviorally disturbed sibling bymatching or even exceeding his or her belliger-ence and mischief. This is notwithstanding hownegative behaviors might be acquired throughmere exposurenegative behaviors that mayeven be exhibited in more regressive and primi-

tive forms, given the context of psychotherapy.

Conclusion

One can only speculate as to the reasons for thedearth of literature on sibling therapy as an indis-pensable treatment approach with children andadolescents. It is tempting to muse over possiblebiases in the field toward conceptualizing andaddressing psychopathology strictly in terms ofparental deficiencies or to bemoan the excessivefascination with biochemical explanations andremedies. Yet reductionistic tendencies of thissort may undercut the influential role sibling de-

terminants often play in the emergence and main-tenance of child and adolescent behavior prob-lems. Of particular import is the empirical linkbetween destructive sibling conflict and displaysof aggression with peers (Duncan, 1999; Garciaet al., 2000). It stands to reason that if aggressioncan extend from the sibling relationship into a

childs dealings with his or her peers, then siblingwork might bolster the efficacy of interventionsdesigned to curb a childs general propensity forhostility. Indeed, it is curious that public policy-

makers and clinicians seem to have largely ig-nored the connection between sibling and peeraggression in their commentaries on school-based violence (Dusenbury & Falco, 1997). Di-rect intervention with combative siblings mayhelp curtail the perpetration of aggression outsidethe home with peers.

Besides underscoring the utility of interven-tions designed to ameliorate injurious siblingconflict as well as revisiting and elaborating onthe role of sibling therapy in emboldening attach-ments during periods of family dissolution andreorganization as outlined by previous scholars(Lewis, 1995; Rosenberg, 1980; Schibuk, 1989),

I have attempted to make inroads for addressingproblematic selfother differentiation among sib-lings. However, what is contained in this articlelargely pertains to treating sibling dyads. Othervaluable contributions to consolidating siblingtherapy as a bona fide treatment modality mightcenter on deleterious alliances and coalitionsprevalent in work with multiple siblings. More-over, there are gaps in the literature regarding therelevance of concentrated work with siblings forenhancing adjustment to a blended family, andsystematic investigation of adjunctive parent in-volvement when conducting sibling therapy issorely needed. Additional topics that merit schol-

arly exploration are the pros and cons of con-jointly treating same-gender versus opposite-gender siblings as well as the intricacies involvedin therapy with ethnic minority children and ado-lescents where age- and gender-based power dif-ferentials and role expectations may vary fromwhat is considered normative in the AngloAmerican sibling relationship. In ending, if sib-ling therapy is to gain currency as part of thetreatment armamentarium of child- and family-oriented clinicians, strides have to be made inexpanding the available literature on the topic. Itis hoped that this article is a step in that direction.

ReferencesADLER, A. (1931). What life should mean to you. Boston:

Little, Brown.AZMITIA, M., & HESSER, J. (1993). Why siblings are important

agents of cognitive development: A comparison of siblingsand peers. Child Development, 64, 430444.

BANK, S., & KAHN, M. (1997). The sibling bond. New York:Basic Books.

Enrico Gnaulati

86

7/28/2019 Gnaulati

12/12

BENNETT, J. C. (1990). Nonintervention into siblings fightingas a catalyst for learned helplessness. Psychological Re-

ports, 66, 139145.BERNDT, T. J., & BULLEIT, T. N. (1985). Effects of sibling

relationships on preschoolers behavior at home and at

school. Developmental Psychology, 21, 761767.CICIRELLI, V. G. (1976). Siblings teaching siblings. In V. L.Allen (Ed.), Children as teachers (pp. 99111). New York:Academic Press.

DUNCAN, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An in-vestigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of

Interpersonal Vi olence, 14, 871887.DUNN, J., & KENDRICK, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and

understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.DUSENBURY, L., & FALCO, M. (1997). Nine critical elements

of promising violence prevention programs. Journal ofSchool Health, 67, 409415.

ELSTEIN, S. G. (1999). Making decisions about siblings in thechild welfare system. Child Law Practice, 18, 101108.

FALICOV, J. C. (1998). The cultural meaning of family tri-angles. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Revisioning familytherapy (pp. 282294). New York: Guilford Press.

FELSON, R. B. (1983). Aggression and violence between sib-lings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 271285.FISHMAN, H. C. (1993). Intensive structural therapy: Treating

families in their social context. New York: Basic Books.GARCIA, M. M., SHAW, D. S., WINSLOW, E. B., & YAGGI, K.

E. (2000). Destructive sibling conflict and the developmentof conduct problems in young boys. Developmental Psy-chology, 36, 4453.

GOETTING, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of siblingshipover the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,703714.

GOODWIN, M., & ROSCOE, B. (1990). Sibling violence andagonistic interactions among middle adolescents. Adoles-cence, 25, 451467.

HETHERINGTON, E. M., & STANLEY-HAGEN, M. (1995). Par-enting in divorced and remarried families. In M. Bornstein(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 233255). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.KISSMAN, K. (1997). Noncustodial fatherhood: Research

trends and issues. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 28,7788.

LAMB, M. E., & SUTTON-SMITH, B. (1982). Sibling relation-ships: Their nature and significance across the life span.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

LEWIS, K. G. (1986). Sibling therapy with multiproblem fami-lies. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 12,291300.

LEWIS, K. G. (1988). Sibling therapy: A blend of family andgroup therapy. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,13, 186193.

LEWIS, K. G. (1995). Sibling therapy: One step in breaking thecycle of recidivism in foster care. In L. Combrinck-Graham(Ed.), Children in families at risk: Maintaining the connec-tions (pp. 301325). New York: Guilford Press.

MANDER, G. (1991). Some thoughts on sibling rivalry andcompetitiveness. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 7,368379.

NEWMAN, J. (1994). Conflict and friendship in sibling rela-tionships: A review. Child Study Journal, 24, 119153.

PEROZYNSKI, L., & KRAMER, L. (1999). Parental beliefs aboutmanaging sibling conflict. Developmental Psychology, 35,

489500.PROCHASKA, J. M., & PROCHASKA, J. O. (1985). Childrensviews of the causes and cures of sibling rivalry. ChildWelfare, 64, 427433.

RAFFAELLI, M. (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescence.Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 54, 652663.

RANIERI, R. F., & PRATT, T. C. (1978). Sibling therapy. SocialWork, 23, 418419.

ROSENBERG, E. (1980). Therapy with siblings in reorganizingfamilies. International Journal of Family Therapy, 2,139158.

SCHIBUK, M. (1989). Treating the sibling subsystem: An ad-junct of divorce therapy. American Journal of Orthopsy-chiatry, 59, 226237.

STEWART, R. B., & MARVIN, R. S. (1984). Sibling relations:The role of conceptual perspective-taking in the ontogenyof sibling caregiving. Child Development, 55, 13221332.

STRAUS, M. R., GELLES, P., & STEINMETZ, S. (1980). Behindclosed doors. New York: Doubleday.


87

Documents

Gnaulati