David M. Callahan, Ph.D.
Providing Psychological Services to
Cape Cod and Southeastern Massachusetts
Cohort Reinforcement for Resolving Sibling Conflict
It is a very common occurrence that siblings will engage in frequent conflict with one another. At gentler levels, we see arguing and bickering, but at harsher levels escalations into aggressive and violent behaviors, especially in males. Much of this is normal behavior, based in a typical primate drive to establish hierarchies of power, and should not be seen as pathological. There are times, however, when such conflict escalates to the point where it becomes intrusive to the peace and harmony of family life. At that point, evaluation of the reinforcing dynamics is often helpful in intervening with these conflicts.
It is a common dynamic within sibling groupings that one child is identified as the “instigator” and the other as the “victim.” Most often, but not exclusively, the eldest of the children will be identified as the instigator of most of the conflict, with the younger child perceived as the somewhat innocent victim. However, when parents address the conflict in that way, there is a tendency to inadvertently reinforce the dynamic between the children. Often, older children are in fact more aggressive, while younger children learn passive-aggressive ways to maintain some sense of power and control in their relationship. When parents mediate those conflicts by punishing the older child, they reinforce the elder child’s resentment of the younger child, while also inadvertently rewarding the younger child for behaviors that are at times are essentially “set ups” orchestrated by the child to elicit a parental response.
Often, the use of “cohort reinforcement” is quite beneficial in reducing this level of stress. The fundamental dynamic is that siblings involved in conflict are both rewarded and punished together. The goal of this behavior is to increase a dynamic in which children are forced to learn to work cooperatively to avoid consequences or gain rewards. When first begun, it is usually best to begin with a heavily reinforcement-based model. Thus, for example, when a parent finds children playing cooperatively, praising them or even providing them with some type of tangible reward in acknowledgement of that cooperation is urged. This will increase the likelihood that children will engage in that behavior in the future, as reinforcement does tend to increase the frequency of behaviors. Too often, there is a tendency to avoid children when they are not in conflict, but in doing so, there is often a loss of opportunity to emphasize and praise behaviors that are desired. When conflict occurs, it is probably best for a parent to count to 10 before intervening, as frequently conflicts resolve quickly and independently without intervention. The frequency with which a parent is required to intervene is often much less if that brief delay is allowed. Should difficulties escalate or persist beyond that count, application of a mutual warning is encouraged. Should the warning prove unsuccessful, beginning application of some type of consequence is encouraged. Most often, this probably needs to be no more than separation, such as being sent to different rooms for a brief period of time. This will typically de-escalate the conflict and reduce the frequency of the children engaging in the behavior. Applying multiple warnings often simply reinforces the child’s ability to ignore threats and warnings, and should be avoided.
One of the major complaints about in this approach is that it does not attempt to establish justice. Often children will “plead their case” with their parents. I believe that the most effective parental response to sibling conflict is one that encourages them to solve their own difficulties. Thus, “You guys need to work this out” is often a much better intervention than “Tell me what happened.” Typically, each child has a version of the story that blames the other in such situations and the sequence of events leading up to the conflict has rarely been observed. There is a tendency for the person who misbehaved last to be blamed, but often there has been a long chain of interactions that resulted in the ultimate outcome, with children often being punished for retaliating against an equally aversive behavior on the part of their sibling. Thus, recognizing that it is more important that children learn to resolve conflict than that each moment be resolved in the fairest possible way is urged. Creating a dynamic in which children essentially must learn to work together to avoid consequences from parents is often very effective in reducing the frequency of their difficulties.
Two simple examples illustrate this process. Children often argue about who will be allowed to sit in the front seat of a car. A simple rule is that if there is any disagreement about who sits in the front seat, then neither child does, thus requiring the children to form some type of cooperative strategy that is of mutual benefit. Another example is when two children argue over a toy. The parent simply removes the toy from them, informing them that they will return the toy to whatever child both children identify as the recipient. Until the children are able to come to agreement, the parent retains the object. These are very simple interventions that do create a very different dynamic when children are being competitive for attention, resources or power, essentially forcing them to learn negotiation and conflict resolution skills that will be quite important to them in forming relationships in the future.
