Italian Adaptation and Validation of the Sibling Attachment Inventory

• Published date: 01 December 2021
• Author: Santa Parrello,Massimiliano Sommantico,Barbara De Rosa
• Date: 01 December 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12425

S P, M S,  B D RUniversity of Naples

Federico II

Italian Adaptation and Validation of the Sibling

Attachment Inventory

Objective: The aim of this study was to adapt

and validate the Sibling Attachment Inventory

(SAI) to the Italian context and to examine its

psychometric properties.

Method: Using an Internet-based survey, data

were collected from 500 Italian young adults

(aged 18–30). Exploratory and conrmatory

factor analyses were carried out to explore the

factorial structure of the SAI. Correlations with

the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment

(IPPA), the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale,

the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Rosen-

berg Self-Esteem Scale werecarried out to verify

convergent and predictive validity.

Results: The instrument had good levels of

internal consistency and a monodimensional

structure, also providing evidence for valid-

ity. By comparing three models proposed in

the literature, the results indicate that the

three-factor model had the best t indices.

Further, secure attachments were linked to high

levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction.

Conclusion: The Italian version of the SAI has

good psychometric properties, suggesting its

ability to assess young adults’ sibling attach-

ment in the Italian cultural context. It is expected

to be a useful self-report measure in research

aimed to study individual differences in young

adults’ sibling attachment.

Department of Humanities, University of Naples Fed-

erico II, via Porta di Massa 1, 80133 Naples, Italy (som-

manti@unina.it).

Key Words: attachment, satisfaction, self-esteem, siblings,

young adults.

The attachment system appears to be a fun-

damental component of emotional and behav-

ioral development throughout late adolescence

and young adulthood. Recently, the attachment

process has been reconceptualized, leading to

the hypothesis that people may form multiple

attachment ties with signicant others in addi-

tion to their primary caregiver. In this sense,

Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, and Collins (2005)

proposed a hierarchical view of development,

proposing that, in facing new developmental

tasks, each stage of development incorporates

previous adaptations, and these new experiences

may produce fundamental transformations, thus

involving continuity and changes.

Furthermore, attachment can be analyzed in

the context of the signicant functions played

not only by parents but also by siblings, and later

by peers and romantic partners (e.g., Antonucci,

Akiyama, & Takahashi, 2004; Feeney, 2016;

Sroufe, 2005; Wilkinson, 2010). Although

a large amount of research has investigated

attachment to parents, peers, and romantic

partners (Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Kocayörük

&¸Sim¸sek, 2016; Raja, McGee, &Stanton,

1992; Sommantico, Donizzetti, Parrello, & De

Rosa, 2019; Wilkinson, 2004; Young, Riggs,

& Kaminski, 2017), only a few studies have

examined sibling attachment. Indeed, the sem-

inal work of Stewart (1983) indicated that in

the Strange Situation, siblings showed attach-

ment behaviors in the mother’s absence, yet

few researchers have subsequently examined

sibling attachment relationships as related to

development. Research has instead focused

on attachment hierarchies, providing a way of

Family Relations 70 (December 2021): 1583–15991583

DOI:10.1111/fare.12425

1584 Family Relations

conceptualizing how individuals manage the

maintenance of attachment bonds with primary

attachment gures as they begin to form new

attachment bonds, and demonstrating that sib-

lings may also play an important role as sources

of attachment (e.g., Doherty & Feeney, 2004;

Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).

The analysis of specic sibling attachment

patterns (e.g., Brumbaugh, 2017; Fraley &

Tancredy, 2012; Noel, Francis, & Tilley, 2018;

Pinel-Jacquemin & Zaouche-Gaudron, 2013;

Schwarz, Musta´

c, & Junker, 2015; Tibbetts &

Scharfe, 2015) is a recent focus in the literature.

In this research, it has emerged that sister–sister

pairs were characterized by higher quality of

attachment than other sibling pairs (e.g., Brum-

baugh, 2017; Buist, Dekovi´

c, Meeus, & van

Aken, 2002); younger siblings are more likely

to use their brothers or sisters as attachment

gure (e.g., Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Fraley

& Tancredy, 2012); monozygotic twins have

a more secure attachment relationship with

their siblings than to their romantic partners,

while dizygotic twins are equally attached to

their siblings and to their romantic partners,

and nontwin siblings are more attached to their

romantic partner (Schwarz et al., 2015). Fearful

sibling attachment patterns predict higher levels

of sibling conict, as well as submission in the

interaction, whereas dismissive sibling attach-

ment patterns predict higher levels of sibling

conict but also domination in the interaction

(Tibbetts & Scharfe, 2015).

The sibling bond represents one of longest

lasting lifetime relationships, remaining unique

and inuential in comparison to other relation-

ships (e.g., Bank & Kahn, 1997; Sommantico,

2018). Because of this, we can hypothesize not

only that a sibling could represent one of the

rst attachment gures to inuence individu-

als’ early psychosocial development, but also

that an individual’s attachment to his or her

sibling(s) can endure throughout the lifespan.

Although research initially focused primarily

on sibling relationships of children or adoles-

cents (e.g., Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Dunn,

Slomkowski, & Beardsall, 1994; Stocker, Dunn,

& Plomin, 1989), increased attention is now ded-

icated to examining young adult sibling relation-

ships from a lifespan perspective (e.g., Cicirelli,

1995; Collier Portner & Riggs, 2016; Con-

ger & Little, 2010; Donsì, Parrello, Grossi, &

Ragozini, 2010; Riggio, 2006; Tani, Guarnieri,

& Ingoglia, 2013; Wal¸ecka-Matyja, 2016). This

new research looks at changes that occur in

sibling relationships during the transition to

early adulthood (e.g., Arnett, 2004), a time that

is linked to new developmental tasks,such as

leaving home, completing education, becoming

employed, getting married, and having children

(e.g., Conger & Little, 2010; Roisman, Masten,

Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004).

Literature on sibling relationships (e.g.,

White, 2001; Whiteman, McHale, & Soli, 2011)

generally indicates that during the transition

to adulthood, sibling ties are characterized by

less conict and more closeness. In particular,

research has highlighted a decrease in sibling

rivalry for parental attention (e.g., Suitor &

Pillemer, 2007), also due to fewer daily inter-

actions (e.g., Scharf, Shulman, & Avigad-Spitz,

2005). Research has also highlighted that in the

transition to young adulthood, sibling bonds

are characterized by less proximity and more

symmetry. Despite these changes, which are

specically related to this phase of transition,

sibling bonds may still act as a protective fac-

tor for well-being and life satisfaction (e.g.,

Waite, Shanahan, Calkins, Keane, & O’Brien,

2011). Of note, researchers have also found

that parental favoritism may still affect sibling

relationships during this period, which may thus

continue to be characterized by jealousy and

rivalry for parental attention (e.g., Finzi-Dottan

& Cohen, 2011; Myers & Goodboy, 2010; Tani

et al., 2013).

Age, gender, and some family characteristics

have been identied as related to sibling relation-

ship quality during siblings’ transition to ado-

lescence. For example, age difference between

siblings becomes less relevant, partly because of

a shift to a more egalitarian sibling relationship

(e.g., Scharfet al.,2005; Stewartet al., 2001).

Several studies have indicated that sibling pairs’

composition may affect the sibling relationship

(e.g., Bedford, Volling, & Avioli, 2000; Scharf

et al.,2005; Wal¸ecka-Matyja, 2016); however,

Mouw (2005) did not nd signicant gender dif-

ferences. In particular, opposite-sex pairs were

identied as having less conict than same-sex

pairs (e.g., White & Riedmann, 1992), but also

females generally report highest levels of inti-

macy and warmth, especially in Western soci-

eties (e.g., Milevsky, Smoot, Leh, & Ruppe,

2005). Several studies have demonstrated that

parents’ marital status may play an important

role in moderating sibling relationship quality

(e.g., Collier Portner & Riggs, 2016; Milevsky,