Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma logoLink to Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma
. 2024 Jul 13;17(4):1067–1078. doi: 10.1007/s40653-024-00646-1

Physical and Emotional Sibling Violence Behaviors with Closest-Aged Siblings in Childhood: An Exploratory Study Examining Associations with Sibling Relationships in Adulthood

Nathan H Perkins 1,✉, Ruri Kim 1, Jennifer A Shadik 2
PMCID: PMC11646235  PMID: 39686941

Abstract

Research examining the influence of physical and emotional sibling violence on siblings’ relationships across the lifespan is scant. This exploratory research examined whether affect, behavior, and cognitions associated with closest-aged sibling relationships in childhood as well as the occurrence of behaviors associated with physical and emotional sibling violence in childhood impacted adult sibling relationships in a sample of 156 adults. Using the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (Riggio J Soc Pers Relat 17(6):707–728, 2000), associations were found between all aspects of childhood and adulthood sibling relationships. Frequency of sibling violence behaviors correlated with Child Affect and Adult Behavior. Differences were found between females and males on Child Affect, Adult Behavior, and Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors. Regression models examined whether childhood sibling relationship quality (Child Affect, Child Behavior, Child Cognitions), frequency of sibling violence behaviors in childhood, and gender predicted Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, Adult Cognitions. Child Affect and Child Cognitions predicted Adult Affect, Child Behavior and gender predicted Adult Behavior, and only Child Cognitions predicted Adult Cognition. Frequency of physical and emotional sibling violence in childhood did not predict Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, or Adult Cognitions individually. However, frequency of physical and emotional sibling violence in childhood was associated with a total adult sibling relationship score when controlling for a total childhood sibling relationship score. Findings suggest the need for future research to consider the complexity of closest-aged sibling relationships across the lifespan and how physical and emotional sibling violence factors into how individuals perceive their relationships with siblings.

Keywords: Sibling violence, Adult siblings, Physical violence, Emotional violence, Relationship quality

Introduction & Background

Research has found a link between an individual’s early experiences with a sibling and their beliefs in adulthood regarding their sibling relationships (Riggio, 2000. Few studies, however, have examined how attitudes and behaviors related to adult relationships with siblings are linked to past experiences with a sibling in childhood. Although physical and emotional sibling violence (PESV) is the most common form of family violence (Straus et al., 2006), the examination of behaviors associated with PESV in childhood and how these impact adult sibling relationships is scant. This research study strives to begin addressing the gap on how experiences of sibling violence with one’s closest-aged sibling in childhood impacts adult sibling relationships. The following sections highlight several outcomes in children and adults who experienced PESV as well as Riggio’s (2000) characteristics associated with sibling relationships to provide context for the current study.

Impacts of PESV in Childhood and Adulthood

Physical and emotional sibling violence can be defined as any physical, emotional, or psychological behavior enacted by one sibling toward another with the intent to harm (Perkins et al., 2017). In 2013, approximately 30% of a national sample of children and youth aged 0–17 reported experiencing sibling assault at some point in their childhood (Finkelhor et al., 2015). Physical and emotional sibling violence has been associated with depression, anxiety, and aggression (Renner et al., 2020); substance abuse and delinquency (Button & Gealt, 2010); and conflicting caregivers/parents and domestic violence (Dantchev & Wolke, 2019). Regarding gender, the research on PESV has been inconclusive (Perkins, 2014; Tucker et al., 2013) with some research finding females experience more sibling victimization (Krienert & Walsh, 2011; Toseeb et al., 2018), some finding males report more victimization when focusing solely on one sibling (Coyle et al., 2017), with brother-brother dyads experiencing the most (Hoffman et al., 2005), and other research finding no differences in victimization between females and males (Tucker et al., 2013; Wolke & Skew, 2011).

Physical and emotional sibling violence has been associated with a lower sense of competence, higher internalized problems, and lower life satisfaction (Plamondon et al., 2018); low self-esteem (Meyers, 2014; Plamondon et al., 2018; Wiehe, 1997); and physical and emotional aggression (King et al., 2018) in adults. Shalash et al. (2013) found verbal attacking conflict between siblings in childhood to be associated with the same type of conflict for those married and in cohabiting relationships in young adulthood. Most of the research that has examined the effects of PESV for adult siblings, however, has focused on younger adults and not those in middle or older adulthood.

The limited research regarding the effects of PESV for middle and older adulthood highlights the need for continued examination of this phenomenon. Waldinger et al. (2007) found men that reported sibling relationships consisting of severe rivalry or conflict in childhood had significantly higher major depression and significantly higher use of mood-altering drugs compared to those reporting average or good sibling relationships. In their research on relationships between adult siblings, Grief and Woolley (2016) noted that middle-aged and older adults reported emotional, verbal, and psychological sibling conflict, which was attributable to unresolved instances of sibling conflict in childhood. This unresolved conflict impacted adult siblings working together to address care-taking needs for elderly parents. Considering the implications of PESV on sibling relationships well into adulthood, additional research into affect, behavior, and cognition in adult sibling relationships is warranted.

Sibling Relationships into Adulthood

Sibling relationships are formed during childhood and are likely to have an impact throughout an individual’s life. These relationships may look different with some being positive (e.g. warm, open, supportive), others being negative (e.g. conflicts, rivalry, hostility, or neglect), and some siblings being ambivalent about their brothers and sisters and their sibling relationships. It is also possible for sibling relationships to fluctuate over time where sibling relationships in childhood may look different than sibling relationships in adulthood (Conger & Little, 2010). The quality of adulthood sibling relationships may also be influenced by the experiences of childhood sibling relationships (Grief & Woolley, 2016).

Riggio (2000) views sibling relationships as having three components: affect, behavior, and cognition. Riggo highlights that the combinations of these three areas can reflect the quality of sibling relationships in adulthood as well as childhood. These three constructs have been included in the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS; Riggio, 2000) that many researchers have used to examine the quality of sibling relationships across the lifespan (for example: Ngangana et al., 2016; Portner & Riggs, 2016; Riggio, 2001; Tomeny et al., 2017). Affect, behavior, and cognition in sibling relationships are often interrelated (Riggio, 2000), yet individually and collectively can provide a more holistic understanding of sibling relationship quality. The following sections provide background information on sibling affect, sibling behavior, and sibling cognition as constructs.

Adult Sibling Affect

Shortt and Gottman (1997) note “the sibling relationship is an emotional relationship” (p.145). According to Riggio (2006), adult sibling affect refers to the degree of emotions about one’s sibling and one’s sibling relationships in adulthood. Positive emotions such as warmth, loving, closeness in sibling relationships are key contributing factors for developing emotionally close adult sibling relationships (Myers & Bryant, 2008; Myers, 2011). In a study of sibling pairs, Shortt and Gottman (1997) found those siblings who reported their sibling relationships as close demonstrated more positive affect and emotional empathy than siblings who reported being distant. Folwell et al. (1997) found that those older adults who reported feeling emotionally close with their sibling had commonalities, were close in proximity, and one in the sibling pair took on a surrogate parental role. Even younger adults report positive emotions regarding their siblings despite life course transitions, such as leaving the family of origin home (Portner & Riggs, 2016). Affection in sibling relationships is associated with discussing problems and resolving conflict (Recchia & Howe, 2009), as well as respecting each other’s views, having a shared understanding of other family members’ behaviors, and being present for each other when support is needed (Myers & Bryant, 2008; Myers, 2011; Weaver et al., 2003).

Adult Sibling Behavior

Riggio (2006) defines adult sibling behaviors as the frequency of interaction and the degree of communication, such as how often they call and/or speak to each other, spend time together, borrow things from each other, and share secrets and issues. Studies show there is considerable variability across individuals in the degree of interaction and communication with siblings (Cicirelli, 1996; Martin et al., 2005). Frequency of interaction can range from a few times a day to not having any contact with each other (Voorpostel & Van der Lippe, 2007). Behaviors associated with sibling interaction can vary substantially when siblings leave home and begin their careers (Cicirelli, 1996) with interactions oftentimes increasing between siblings later in life when caring for elderly parents and themselves entering the later stages of the lifespan (Grief & Woolley, 2016) Adult sibling behaviors could involve providing emotional support such as showing caring, sharing empathy, and expressing concern as well as physical support such as cooking, buying food/gifts, providing transportation, lending money, and being there for each other when ill (Myers & Bryant, 2008; Voorpostel & Van der Lippe, 2007). Informational support (e.g. sharing feedback and advice), esteem support (e.g. providing encouragement, confidence, and compliments), and network support (e.g. introducing siblings to friends of each other, and including each other in the same social network) are behaviors that can occur when siblings feel emotionally close to each other (Myers & Bryant, 2008).

Adult Sibling Cognition

Beliefs and thoughts about one’s sibling and the sibling relationship in adulthood constitute adult sibling cognition (Riggio, 2000). Adult sibling cognition is associated with shared experiences throughout the life course (Connidis, 1992) and their similarities and differences in lifestyle and personality (Finzi-Dottan & Cohen, 2011). Shared experiences that are likely to impact adult sibling cognitions can include positive or negative events within their household, such as spending quality time together as a family, experiencing conflicts between parents, time spent receiving help from or being neglected by siblings, and any other critical events (Feinberg et al., 2012). How individuals perceive these critical events can be linked to their current adult sibling cognitions (Riggio, 2006, p.1252). How siblings contemplate and think about their sibling relationships may influence the potential for either conflict or closeness. Similarities or differences in their thinking may impact whether conflicts are likely to be experienced in their sibling relationships (Finzi-Dottan & Cohen, 2011). If siblings conceive of each other as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and supportive, the level of satisfaction in sibling relationships improves (Myers & Bryant, 2008).

Gender

Regarding the influence of gender on sibling relationships into adulthood, the research is inconclusive based on examination of sibling dyads (Sommantico et al., 2019). In a study including 578 university students from Turkey, Cilali and colleagues (2019) found significant differences existed between females and males on Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, and Adult Cognitions, but no differences between the two groups on Child Affect, Child Behavior, and Child Cognitions regarding sibling relationships. Similarly, Sommantico and colleagues (2019) found females to report more positivity regarding sibling relationships on Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, and Adult Cognitions in a sample of university students. However, Portner and Riggs (2016) found no differences between females and males university students on any of the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale subscales.

Current Study

The aforementioned research highlights PESV as a problematic phenomenon for many individuals that may be related to adult sibling affect, behavior, and cognitions. Efforts to examine the impact of behaviors associated with PESV on adult sibling affect, behavior, and cognitions is limited. The current research study begins to address this gap. Given the importance of the sibling relationship and its likelihood as a life-long relationship for many individuals, it is likely that the frequency of PESV behaviors in childhood will be associated with sibling relationship quality in childhood and adulthood as well as related to adult sibling affect, behavior, and cognitions. To examine the associations between PESV frequency in childhood and adult sibling affect, behavior, and cognition the following hypotheses were used as a guide for this research study:

Hypothesis 1

Frequency of experiencing behaviors associated with sibling violence in childhood will be correlated with child and adult sibling affect, behaviors, and cognitions.

Hypothesis 2

There will be no difference between females and males on the sibling relationship variables and frequency of sibling violence behaviors experienced in childhood.

Hypothesis 3

Frequency of experiencing behaviors associated with sibling violence in childhood will predict adult sibling affect, behaviors, and cognitions when controlling for childhood sibling affect, behaviors, cognitions, and participant gender.

Methods

This secondary data analysis research study uses data previously collected by the first and third authors to examine parental responses regarding their experiences and attitudes on PESV. For the initial data collection, the Qualtrics survey panel platform was used. Qualtrics maintains a panel of potential respondents across the United States who have opted to participate in projects by researchers who use Qualtrics. Based on the inclusion criteria for the study, Qualtrics recruited and obtained a sample of 209 individuals who had at least one sibling growing up. Along with demographic information, participants in the primary research study were asked to respond to various items on adverse childhood experiences, sibling relationships across the lifespan, frequency of experiencing PESV behaviors in childhood as a perpetrator or recipient, frequency of witnessing PESV behaviors between their children, attitudes on sibling relationships, and instances of community and family violence. For all measures related to a sibling, participants were asked to respond to item in reference to only their closest-aged sibling in childhood and adulthood. The current research study specifically includes only those individuals (N = 156) who responded to and had a total frequency of sibling violence behaviors score. This exploratory research study examines whether childhood affect, behaviors, and cognitions of sibling relationships and the occurrence of behaviors associated with physical emotional sibling violence impacted adult affect, behaviors, and cognitions of adult sibling relationships. The first and third authors received IRB approval for the original study from their respective universities.

Measures

Demographics

Participants provided their current demographic information. Participants’ current demographics included gender, age, ethnicity, household income, and education. For all subsequent items, participants responded to all questions with regard to their closest aged sibling in childhood.

Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS)

The LSRS (LSRS; Riggio, 2000) consists of 48 items assessing affect, behaviors, and cognitions regarding one’s attitudes on the quality of one’s sibling relationships in childhood and adulthood. In the LSRS, affect refers to emotions one feels towards a sibling, behavior refers to the interactions one has with a sibling and whether those interactions are positive or negative, and cognition refers to the beliefs and thoughts one has regarding a sibling and the sibling relationship (Riggio, 2020). In taking the LSRS, participants respond to items on affect, behaviors, and cognitions regarding their relationship with one sibling in both childhood and adulthood. Adult sibling affect items of the scale include such statements as, “My sibling makes me happy,” and “I admire my sibling.” Adult sibling behavior items of the scale include statements such as, “My sibling and I do a lot of things together” and “I call my sibling on the telephone frequently.” Adult sibling cognition items of the scale include such statements as “I believe I am very important to my sibling” and “I know that I am one of my sibling’s best friends.” Items about childhood sibling relationships are similar to those of the items about adulthood sibling relationships but refer to experiences in childhood. Each of the six subscales (Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, Adult Cognitions, Child Affect, Child Behavior, Child Cognitions) contains 8 items and participants were asked to respond to Likert items using a 5-point scale from “1 = Strongly Agree” to “5 = Strongly Disagree.” Higher scores indicate more disagreement with positive affect, engaging in positive sibling behaviors, and positive cognitions associated with each item of the LSRS. Instead of calculating a total score indicating an overarching measure for adult sibling affect, behavior, and cognition, only the subscale scores were included in this research project. This allowed for examining each adult sibling factors separately in each of the regression models that were run. The subscales have demonstrated substantial internal consistency from 0.84 to 0.91, good test-retest reliability, and good convergent and discriminant validity (see Riggio, 2000) with adaptation, validation, and reliability shown in diverse samples (Oz, 2015; Sommantico et al., 2019). For this sample, the Cronbach’s alphas of each subscale presented moderate to good internal consistency (Cortina, 1993): Child Affect (α = 0.79), Child Behavior (α = 0.82), Child Cognitions (α = 0.89), Adult Affect (α = 0.93), Adult Behavior (α = 0.91), Adult Cognitions (α = 0.93). Participants were asked to respond to items about their closest aged sibling with regard to their current sibling relationship and sibling relationship in childhood.

Frequency of Violent Behaviors Experienced with Sibling

Fifty items were included to assess the frequency with which the participants experienced physically and emotionally violent behaviors with a sibling in childhood either as a perpetrator (25 items) or recipient (25 items). Uncovered in the work of Caffaro and Conn-Caffaro (1998), Straus et al. (1996), and Wiehe (1997), these behaviors were originally used for the first author’s dissertation to ask parents which behaviors associated with sibling violence they had experienced with a sibling in childhood and what behaviors associated with sibling violence they had witnessed between their children (Perkins, 2014). These items were used due to the lack of inclusivity of various behaviors associated with sibling violence in other measures assessing for deleterious behaviors between siblings in childhood. Behaviors included are based solely on those behaviors associated with sibling violence in the literature. Included are behaviors between siblings that have been found to be physically and/or emotionally violent in nature in the literature (Perkins, 2014) and consisted of such behaviors as: slapping, teasing, throwing something at a sibling, slamming a sibling against a wall, threatening, destroying a sibling’s property, punching, kicking, making a sibling feel guilty, and choking. Participants were asked to rate the frequency (“1 = Never” to “5 = Very Frequently”) in which they had experienced the behaviors in childhood with their closest-aged sibling with higher scores indicating higher frequency of experiencing the behaviors with a sibling as either a perpetrator or recipient. A total Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors score was computed by summing the frequency of sibling violence behaviors as either a perpetrator or victim for all data analyses.

Data Analysis

Along with examining frequencies and descriptives of the demographic information, a series of correlations were run to examine associations between Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, Adult Cognitions, Child Affect, Child Behavior, Child Cognitions, and frequency of behaviors experienced with a sibling as a perpetrator and victim (total score) to address the first hypothesis. To address the second hypothesis, a series of independent t-tests were run to examine any potential differences based on gender for the sibling relationship variables as well as the frequency of sibling violence behaviors variable. To address the third hypothesis, a series of three ordinary least squares regression models were run to examine factors associated with Adult Affect, Adult Behaviors, and Adult Cognitions. The regression models included Child Affect, Child Behaviors, Child Cognitions combined), total frequency of experiencing sibling violence behaviors in childhood score (either as a perpetrator or recipient) and gender of participant. as predictor variables. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.

Results

Demographics

Participants ranged in age from 27 to 62 (M = 40.5, SD = 7.51) with 5 participants not reporting their age (Table 1). Of the sample, 55.1% identified as female, 55.8% had a current household income of $75,000 or higher, 62.8% had at least a bachelor’s degree, and 80.1% identified as Caucasian.

Table 1.

Participant demographics (N=156)

Current Demographics Frequency (Percent)
Gender
Female 86(55.1)
Male 64(41)
Missing 6(3.8)
Current Household Income
$0-25,000 16(10.3)
$25,000-50,000 21(13.5)
$50,000-75,000 30(19.2)
$75,000-100,000 34(21.8)
$100,000+ 53(34)
Missing 2(1.3)
Education
High School Graduate/GED 18(11.5)
Technical/Vocational School 4(2.6)
Some College/No Degree 20(12.8)
Associate’s Degree 15(9.6)
Bachelor’s Degree 47(30.1)
Some Graduate School 1(0.6)
Master’s Degree 43(27.6)
Doctoral Degree 7(4.5)
Missing 1(0.6)
Ethnicity
Asian 8(5.1)
Biracial 1(0.6)
Black 5(3.2)
Black-Hispanic 1(0.6)
Caucasian 125(80.1)
Caucasian-Hispanic 2(1.3)
Latinx/Hispanic 5(3.2)
Missing 9(5.8)
Mean(Range)
Age 40.55(27-62)
Missing 2 cases
Open in a new tab

Correlations-Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. All of the subscales of the LSRS were significantly correlated (Table 2). Frequency of sibling violence behaviors was not associated with Child Behavior, Child Cognition, Adult Affect, or Adult Cognition. Frequency of experiencing sibling violence behaviors was significantly associated with Child Affect (r(155) = 0.370, p < 0.001) and Adult Behavior (r(154) = − 0.185, p = 0.021). In this case, higher frequency of violence behaviors was associated with less positive feelings/affect regarding a sibling in childhood. Frequency of sibling violence behaviors was associated with Adult Behavior meaning the more one experienced sibling violence behaviors as a perpetrator, the more positivity and frequency of behaviors with a sibling in adulthood.

Table 2.

Correlations

CA CB CC AA AB AC SV M SD
CA - 20.21 6.38
CB 0.478** - 20.32 6.75
CC 0.571** 0.833** - 20.70 7.75
AA 0.489** 0.585** 0.608** - 19.79 9.07
AB 0.257** 0.580** 0.559** 0.736** - 23.45 8.87
AC 0.412** 0.599** 0.637** 0.905** 0.864** - 21.08 9.32
SV 0.370** -0.075 -0.067 0.007 -0.185* -0.071 - 113.74 60.09
Open in a new tab

Note CA = Child Affect; CB = Child Behavior; CC = Child Cognitions; AA = Adult Affect; AB = Adult Behavior; AC = Adult Cognitions; SV = Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors in Childhood

*p=/<0.05, **p=/<0.01

Independent T-Tests by Gender-Hypothesis 2

Independent samples t-tests were run to examine any potential differences in Child Affect, Child Behavior, Child Cognitions, Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, Adult Cognitions, and Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors by gender (Table 3). Results found females and males to differ significantly on Child Affect, Adult Behavior, and Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors thereby only partially supporting Hypothesis 2. For Child Affect (t(146.57) = -2.06, p = 0.04, d = 0.32), females reported lower scores (M = 19.43) than males (M = 21.49) meaning males reported more disagreement with positive affect in sibling relationships in childhood. For Adult Behavior (t(145.51) = 4.30, p < 0.001, d = 0.69), males reported lower scores (M = 20.08) than females (M = 25.93) meaning females reported more disagreement with engaging in positive sibling behaviors in sibling relationships in adulthood than males. Finally, for Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors (t(101.87) = -6.52, p < 0.001, d = 1.14), females reported lower scores (M = 87.37) than males (M = 146.72) meaning males reported significantly more frequency of engaging in sibling violence behaviors with a sibling in childhood than females.

Table 3.

Independent T-tests of sibling relationship and frequency of sibling violence behaviors by gender

Variable Female Male t p Cohen’s d
M SD N M SD N
Child Affect 19.43 7.22 86 21.49 4.99 63 -2.06 0.04 0.32
Child Behavior 20.94 6.81 84 19.27 6.65 62 1.48 0.14 0.25
Child Cognitions 21.72 8.01 85 19.28 7.24 61 1.89 0.06 0.31
Adult Affect 20.37 9.76 86 18.60 7.79 63 1.23 0.22 0.20
Adult Behavior 25.93 9.28 85 20.08 7.27 63 4.30 <0.001 0.69
Adult Cognitions 22.05 10.35 86 19.26 7.36 62 1.92 0.06 0.30
Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors 87.37 41.51 86 146.72 63.44 64 -6.52 <0.001 1.14
Open in a new tab

Regressions Models- Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was not supported in the data analysis. The Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors variable was not a significant predictor of Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, or Adult Cognition in any of the regression models (see Table 4). The Adult Affect model was significant (F = 20.38, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43) with Child Affect (p = 0.003) and Child Cognitions (p = 0.04) being associated with one’s affect related to sibling relationships in adulthood. For Adult Behavior, the model was significant (F = 18.93, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.41) with Child Behavior (p = 0.004) and gender (p = 0.001) significantly associated with one’s behaviors with a sibling in adulthood. In this model, those who were male reported more positive behaviors with their closest aged sibling in adulthood compared to those whose were female. The final model on Adult Cognitions was also significant (F = 21.27, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.44) with Child Cognitions (p = 0.002) being the only significant variable in the model. In this case, childhood cognitions related to the sibling relationship were associated with cognitions in adulthood of the sibling relationship.

Table 4.

Ordinary least squares regression on adult affect, adult behavior, & adult cognitions by child affect, child behavior, child cognitions, frequency of sibling violence behaviors, and gender

Variables Adult Affect Adult Behavior Adult Cognitions
B SE B p B SE B p B SE B p
Child Affect 0.38 0.13 0.003 0.01 0.13 0.96 0.22 0.13 0.09
Child Behavior 0.26 0.16 0.10 0.46 0.16 0.004 0.21 0.16 0.20
Child Cognitions 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.25 0.15 0.09 0.49 0.15 0.002
Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors 0.00 0.01 0.98 -0.001 0.01 0.94 -0.004 0.01 0.74
Gender* -1.37 1.36 0.31 -4.50 1.38 0.001 -1.67 1.41 0.24
Model Information

R2 =0.43

F = 20.38, p < 0.001

N = 143

R2 =0.41

F = 18.93, p < 0.001

N = 143

R2 =0.44

F = 21.27, p < 0.001

N = 142
Open in a new tab

*Note: Female is the reference category

Due to the exploratory nature of this study; the lack of association of Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors with Adult Affect, Adult Behaviors, and Adult Cognitions in any of the regression models; and the complexity associated with breaking sibling relationships down to affect, behaviors, and cognitions, the authors ran a final regression model on adult sibling relationships using a summed score for both childhood sibling relationships (Affect, Behaviors, and Cognitions combined) and adult sibling relationships (Affect, Behaviors, and Cognitions combined) as well as the Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors score. This model was significant (F = 54.64, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43) with both the childhood sibling relationship score (p < 0.001) and Frequency of Sibling Violence Behaviors (p = 0.046) significantly associated with the adult sibling relationship score.

Discussion

This exploratory research study is one of the first to examine the frequency of behaviors associated with PESV in childhood and the connection between these behaviors and sibling affect, behavior, and cognitions in adulthood. We hypothesized that increased experiences of sibling violence behaviors in childhood would be associated with adult sibling relationship quality in terms of affect, behavior, and cognitions. While none of the hypotheses were completely supported, results from this sample indicate that more research is needed to better understand the connection between frequency of behaviors associated with PESV in childhood and how that may influence sibling relationships in adulthood.

All subscales of the LSRS were positively correlated which is consistent with previous research (Riggio, 2000). The frequency of sibling violence behaviors were correlated with Child Affect and negatively correlated with Adult Behavior. In this case, more experiences of violent behaviors with a sibling was significantly related to decreased positive emotions regarding siblings in childhood yet increased behaviors with a sibling in adulthood. Research has demonstrated that PESV can substantially influence children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and emotionality of their sibling relationship (Meyers, 2017), which is consistent with our findings on the connection between frequency of sibling violence behaviors and Child Affect. The finding that increased frequency of sibling violence behaviors was significantly correlated with Adult Behavior was unexpected. It is possible that for some, experiencing violent behaviors with a sibling in childhood is interpreted as not harmful and perceived as normative in the sibling relationship (Perkins, 2014; Perkins & Shadik, 2018) thereby not necessarily negatively impacting behaviors with a sibling in adulthood. It is also important to consider frequency (Caspi, 2012; Perkins, 2014) and severity (Caspi, 2012; Eriksen & Jensen, 2009; Khan, 2017; Khan & Cooke, 2013; Perkins, 2014) of PESV as that may shed light on some of the results of this study. It is possible that unresolved conflict or violence with a sibling from childhood is “swept under the rug” in order to maintain relationships with siblings in adulthood; however, previous research found sibling discord from childhood can lead to sibling conflict and hostility in adult sibling relationships (Milevsky, 2016).

Regarding the findings of the independent t-tests by gender, differences were found between females and males on Child Affect, Adult Behavior, and frequency of sibling violence behaviors. For this sample, females reported significantly more agreement with positive affect towards a sibling in childhood and engaging in less positive behaviors with a sibling in adulthood than males. While the finding of females experiencing more positive affective empathy with a sibling is consistent with previous research (Gungordu & Hernandez-Reif, 2022), the finding that males were more likely to engage in positive behaviors with a sibling in adulthood was not. Males from this sample experienced significantly more frequency of sibling violence behaviors in childhood than did females. In fact, males reported experiencing approximately 68% more frequency of sibling violence behaviors than did females. Prior research regarding which sibling constellation (brother-brother, brother-sister, sister-brother, sister-sister) is inconclusive (Perkins, 2014; Tucker et al., 2013); however, some research has found males to experience more victimization, and multiple instances of victimization with a sibling (Tucker et al., 2013) with brother-brother dyads using more severe forms of physical violence (Goodwin & Roscoe, 1990). That said, it is possible in this sample that the closet-aged sibling, to which male participants referred when responding to items, varied substantially based on sex or that this group of males had significant variation in their experiences with siblings. Another possibility is that although males reported experiencing more frequency of sibling violence behaviors, that these individuals’ perceptions of their relationships with siblings changed overtime or that their experiences of those behaviors was not substantial enough to allow for altering how they interact with siblings in adulthood. Given this, future research needs to include sibling constellation and questions regarding how individuals experienced and perceived their sibling relationships in childhood.

It is also possible that the results of this study were influenced by the requirement of responding to all questions regarding participants’ closest-aged sibling in childhood. It is erroneous to assume that participants had a certain type of relationship with this sibling despite research demonstrating that children and adolescents may be more likely to engage in sibling violence with their closest-aged sibling (Noland et al., 2004). Research addressing PESV in the sibling subsystem should strive to include all siblings when asking about relationships. Future research should also consider asking about sibling dyad constellations (brother-brother, brother-sister, sister-brother, sister-sister) of all sibling relationships when examining the influence of PESV on adult sibling relationships. As evidenced by the findings of this study, research studies that are inclusive of all sibling relationships one has will likely provide more insight regarding the dynamics associated with the occurrence of PESV while simultaneously uncovering other factors which may influence the manifestation of this form of family violence.

While it was hypothesized that frequency of sibling violence behaviors would be related to Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, and Adult Cognition when controlling for Child Affect, Child Behavior, Child Cognition, and gender, results indicated this hypothesis was not supported. Frequency of sibling violence behaviors were not associated with Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, or Adult Cognition when Child Affect, Child Behaviors, Child Cognitions, and gender were included in the model. It is possible that emotions related to the sibling relationship in adulthood are impacted by childhood contextual factors equal to or more so than violent behaviors between siblings, especially if perceptions of those experiences are inconsistent with intent to harm.

The final regression model, however, that included a total score for child sibling relationships and frequency of sibling violence behaviors on a total score for adult sibling relationships did find frequency of sibling violence behaviors to be a significant predictor of adult relationships when controlling for childhood sibling relationships. This finding, along with the prior findings of the three initial regression models likely indicates that there is substantial complexity in understanding the influence of PESV on adult sibling relationships. Research has demonstrated that PESV experienced in childhood can have substantial consequences for adults and their sibling relationships in adulthood (Caffaro, 2014; Grief & Woolley, 2016; Meyers, 2014, 2016, 2017; Wiehe, 1997) and this same research highlights the complexity of differential dynamics, contexts, and circumstances for those experiencing sibling violence in understanding its occurrence and manifestation. To address this, future research needs to consider incorporating variables that will help in better understanding these complexities to ascertain more knowledge about those factors which help influence sibling relationships both in childhood and adulthood.

As found in this study, an individual’s interactions and thoughts about a sibling in adulthood are likely influenced by a myriad of factors. While behaviors experienced with a sibling in childhood may contribute to how one interacts and thinks about their sibling in adulthood (Perkins, 2014), inclusion of family context and environment also warrants consideration when examining violence between siblings (Winters, 2019) and its potential impact on adult sibling relationships (Grief & Woolley, 2016). Furthermore, more studies aimed at examining how individuals perceive the behaviors they experienced with a sibling in childhood is warranted as not all perceptions of what individuals experience with a sibling in childhood regarding violent behaviors are the same (Perkins, 2014).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study strives to increase the understanding of the influence of PESV on adult sibling relationships, it is not without its limitations. Despite this study including a substantial number of participants, a convenience sample was obtained from Qualtrics. Those individuals who were willing and fit the criteria to participate were included in the sample thereby limiting generalizability. Although this study was exploratory, future studies need to strive for increased ethnic representation in samples to better understand sibling violence in childhood and its impact on adult sibling relationships for all ethnic groups. This recommended future research direction is supported by McGuire and Shanahan’s (2010) study showing that sibling relationships may differ in families from different structures and ethnicities, such as Asian American families and adoptive families. Furthermore, sibling affect, behavior, and cognitions may need to be defined differently for boys and girls and in families of different cultural backgrounds. For that reason, understanding sibling relationships within diverse structures, ethnicity, and culture is recommended.

The purpose of this study was to explore potential connections between PESV in childhood and sibling relationship quality in childhood and adulthood. Participants were asked for information related to the frequency of past sibling violence behaviors as well as their attitudes on childhood sibling relationships. Due to potential issues with recall, responses from participants may not be as complete as they would be in a longitudinal study where sibling violence behaviors and sibling relationship quality would be assessed in childhood and then again in adulthood. Also, participants were asked to respond to items based on their closest-aged sibling. It is possible that participants experienced more behaviors associated with PESV with a sibling further apart in age and examination of this relationship would provide more understanding about PESV in all sibling relationships within a family system. Furthermore, participants may have had multiple siblings and future research should examine the same variables included in this study with family systems that include more than two siblings to better understand these dynamics. Participants may also have presented social desirability bias given that these questions were about family members and they may have wanted to appear favorable in their responses. Future studies should consider longitudinal mechanisms to examine this phenomenon as well as inclusion of all sibling relationships to consider and understand more about these issues.

Furthermore, this study is a correlational study, so these results cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding the causality of these factors on sibling relationships. Variables that have not been controlled in the study such as sibling dyad composition, family size, and community environment may have an impact. For example, each individual included in this study was only one-half of a sibling dyad about which participants were to refer. Information from both siblings would provide a more holistic understanding of the impact of sibling violence on adult affect, behavior, and cognitions. As siblings can understand and experience situations differently (Dunn & Plomin, 1991), further research is needed to examine similarities and discrepancies in the frequency of violence experienced with a sibling in childhood, how each sibling is impacted by the violence, and its impact on sibling relationship quality at different times throughout the sibling lifecycle.

Even with the noted limitations, the current study examined an under researched area and revealed several contributing factors from childhood impacting future sibling relationships into adulthood. This research shows the importance of understanding and focusing on the sibling relationship context from childhood while highlighting that more research is needed to better understand the impact PESV may have on adult sibling relationships.

Implications

The present study has significant implications for practice. Sibling relationships are important in social development in childhood and support in adulthood (Feinberg et al., 2012; Riggio, 2000). Thus, it could be beneficial if clinicians working with parents or caregivers provide education related to PESV and sibling relationships which may help to increase improved family functioning patterns. This in turn may help create an environment for positive sibling relationships in childhood and adulthood thereby also serving as a preventative measure to address PESV. Assessment of the sibling relationship itself is essential in preventing and intervening in issues with different types of sibling relationships, such as PESV. It could be beneficial to develop and utilize assessments of sibling relationships for use by practitioners to examine current and past family dynamics. Implementing these as a common practice when gathering client history could contribute to understanding the sibling context in both childhood and adulthood.

Psychoeducation may be key to improving sibling relationships while at the same time reducing the rate of PESV. It may be helpful for parents or caregivers to understand and become educated regarding the differences between PESV and sibling rivalry (Perkins, 2014) and learn how to assess and intervene if PESV is occurring. Prevention and intervention of childhood PESV could also be accomplished by working with parents or caregivers to help them understand how to promote positive and healthy sibling relationships between their children. More specifically, clinicians could provide psychoeducation regarding childhood sibling relationships and their psychological impact. This could allow a safe space for parents or caregivers to teach children the importance of sibling relationships. By exploring and processing this together as a family, experiences of current and future impacts of sibling relationships could be better understood, and the value of sibling relationships throughout their lives might become clear. Combining resources from clinicians and suggested parenting sessions or workshops with improved awareness about the value of sibling relationships throughout one’s life could provide parents or caregivers with the tools and understanding to intervene when physical abuse occurs within the sibling relationship and hopefully prevent it from occurring (Perkins & Shadik, 2018).

For adults, clinicians can help individuals who experienced PESV as a child understand the historical and current impact of the abuse. They can help adult clients understand and examine internalized family rules and messages from their family of origin which they may be carrying into their current relationships. Given that PESV is often minimized (Khan & Rogers, 2015), it is important that clinicians provide a space for validating the impact of clients’ experiences in order to begin healing.

Conclusion

Results of this research indicate that household context from childhood is important when considering those factors which influence how an individual may view their relationship with a sibling in adulthood. Also, contrary to what was hypothesized, the effect of frequency of PESV behaviors on adult affect, behaviors, and cognitions related to sibling relationships may not be as strong when other factors are considered. Future research can expand on this research study with the inclusion of more diverse samples as well as the incorporation of other contextual variables which may help to explain adult sibling relationship quality.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

First Author-Conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, performed the analysis, wrote the paper. Second Author- Conceived and designed the analysis, performed the analysis, wrote the paper. Third Author- Conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, performed the analysis, wrote the paper.

Funding

The authors received no external funding to support this research study.

Data Availability

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not available.

Declarations

Ethical Approval

IRB approval for this study was obtained from both the first and third authors’ institutions.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Button, D. M., & Gealt, R. (2010). High risk behaviors among victims of sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25(2), 131–140. 10.1007/s10896-009-9276-x. [Google Scholar]
  2. Caffaro, J. V. (2014). Sibling abuse trauma: Assessment and intervention strategies for children, families, and adults (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  3. Caffaro, J. V., & Conn-Caffaro, A. (1998). Sibling abuse trauma: Assessment and intervention strategies for children, families, and adults. Haworth Press.
  4. Caspi, J. (2012). Sibling aggression: Assessment and treatment. Springer.
  5. Cicirelli, V. G. (1996). Sibling relationships in middle and old age. In G. H. Brody (Ed.). Sibling Relationships; Their Causes and Consequences (pp. 47–73). Ablex.
  6. Cilali, B., Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Bugay, A. (2019). The reliability and validity of the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale in a Turkish emerging adult sample. Studia Psychologia, 61(1), 17–30. 10.21909/sp.2019.01.769. [Google Scholar]
  7. Conger, K. J., & Little, W. M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 87–94. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Connidis, I. A. (1992). Life transitions and the adult sibling tie: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 54, 972–982. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, S., Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Tennant, J. E., & Klossing, J. (2017). The associations among sibling and peer-bullying, social support and internalizing behaviors. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(6), 895–922. 10.1007/s10566-017-9412-3. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dantchev, S., & Wolke, D. (2019). Trouble in the nest: Antecedents of sibling bullying victimization and perpetration. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1059–1071. 10.1037/dev0000700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. P. (1991). Why are siblings so different? The significance of differences in sibling experiences within the family. Family Process, 30(3), 267–371. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1991.00271.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eriksen, S., & Jensen, V. (2009). A push or a punch: Distinguishing the severity of sibling violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 183–208. 10.1177/0886260508316298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M. (2012). The third rail of family systems: Sibling relationships, mental and behavioral health, and preventive intervention in childhood and adolescence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 43–57. 10.1007/s10567-011-0104-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the National Survey of Children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746–754. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Finzi-Dottan, R., & Cohen, O. (2011). Young adult sibling relations: The effects of perceived parental favoritism and narcissism. Journal of Psychology, 145, 1–22. 10.1080/00223980.2010.528073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Folwell, A. L., Chung, L. C., Nussbaum, J. F., Bethea, L. S., & Grant, J. A. (1997). Differential accounts of closeness in older adult sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(6), 843–849. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodwin, M. P., & Roscoe, B. (1990). Sibling violence and agonistic interactions among middle adolescents. Adolescence, 25(98), 451–467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grief, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2016). Adult sibling relationships. Columbia University Press.
  20. Gungordu, N., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2022). Sibling relationship dynamics relate to young adults’ empathic responding. Journal of Family Studies, 28(2), 785–799. 10.1080/13229400.2020.1753560. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoffman, K. L., Kiecolt, K. J., & Edwards, J. N. (2005). Physical violence between siblings: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 26(8), 1103–1130. 10.1177/0192513X05277809. [Google Scholar]
  22. Khan, R. (2017). Sibling violence: Validating a two-factor model of severity in nonoffender populations. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 498–507. 10.1037/vio0000067. [Google Scholar]
  23. Khan, R., & Cooke, D. J. (2013). Measurement of sibling violence: A two-factor model of severity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(1), 26–39. 10.1177/0093854812463349. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khan, R., & Rogers, P. (2015). The normalization of sibling violence: Does gender and personal experience of violence influence perceptions of physical assault against siblings? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(3), 437–458. 10.1177/0886260514535095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. King, A. R., Ballantyne, S., Ratzak, A., Knutson, S., Russell, T. D., Pogalz, C. R., & Breen, C. M. (2018). Sibling hostility and externalized symptoms of psychological distress. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 27(5), 523–540. 10.1080/10926771.2017.1382637. [Google Scholar]
  26. Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2011). My brother’s keeper: A contemporary examination of reported sibling violence using national level data, 2000–2005. Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 331–342. 10.1007/s10896-011-9367-3. [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Rocca, K. A. (2005). Perception of the adult sibling relationships. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  28. McGuire, S., & Shanahan, L. (2010). Sibling experiences in diverse family contexts. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 72–79. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00121.x. [Google Scholar]
  29. Meyers, A. (2014). A call to child welfare: Protect children from sibling abuse. Qualitative Social Work, 13(5), 654–670. 10.1177/1473325014527332. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meyers, A. (2016). Trauma and recovery: Factors contributing to resiliency of survivors of sibling abuse. The Family Journal, 24(2), 147–156. 10.1177/1066480716628565. [Google Scholar]
  31. Meyers, A. (2017). Lifting the veil: The lived experience of sibling abuse. Qualitative Social Work, 16(3), 333–350. 10.1177/1473325015612143. [Google Scholar]
  32. Milevsky, A. (2016). Sibling issues in therapy. Palgrave.
  33. Myers, S. A. (2011). I have to love her, even if sometimes I may not like her: The reasons why adult maintain their sibling relationships. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  34. Myers, S. A., & Bryant, L. E. (2008). The use of behavioral indicators of sibling commitment among emerging adults. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 101–125. 10.1080/15267430701857364. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ngangana, P. C., Davis, B. L., Burns, D. P., McGee, Z. T., & Montgomery, A. J. (2016). Intra-family stressors among adult siblings sharing caregiving for parents. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 3169–3181. 10.1111/jan.13065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Noland, V. J., Liller, K. D., McDermott, R. J., Coulter, M. L., & Seraphine, A. E. (2004). Is adolescent sibling violence a precursor to college dating violence? American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(Suppl 1), S13–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Oz, F. S. (2015). An adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale to the Turkish adolescents. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(2), 203–209. 10.5897/ERR2014.2006. [Google Scholar]
  38. Perkins, N. H. (2014). Parental perceptions and experiences of physical and emotional violence between siblings: A mixed-methods, comparative case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (No. 3620154).
  39. Perkins, N. H., & Shadik, J. A. (2018). A parent’s perceptions of physical and emotional sibling violence. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 99(1), 78–86. 10.1177/1044389418756638. [Google Scholar]
  40. Perkins, N. H., Coles, D. C., & O’Connor, M. K. (2017). Physical and emotional sibling violence and policy: An examination of Fox-Harding’s child care value perspectives. Child & Youth Services, 38(1), 4–23. 10.1080/0145935X.2016.1166947. [Google Scholar]
  41. Plamondon, A., Bouchard, G., & Lachance-Grzela, M. (2018). Family dynamics and young adults’ well-being: The mediating role of sibling bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 10.1177/0886260518800313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Portner, L. C., & Riggs, S. A. (2016). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood: Associations with parent-child relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1755–1764. 10.1007/s10826-015-0358-5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Recchia, H. E., & Howe, N. (2009). Associations between social understanding, sibling relationship quality, and siblings’ conflict strategies and outcomes. Child Development, 80(5), 1564–1578. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01351.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Renner, L. M., Schwab-Reese, L. M., Coppola, E. C., & Boel-Studt, S. (2020). The contribution of interpersonal violence victimization types to psychological distress among youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 106, 104493. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Riggio, H. R. (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 707–728. 10.1177/2F0265407500176001. [Google Scholar]
  46. Riggio, H. R. (2001). Relations between parental divorce and the quality of adult sibling relationships. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36(1–2), 67–82. 10.1300/J087v36n01_04. [Google Scholar]
  47. Riggio, H. R. (2006). Structural features of sibling dyads and attitudes toward sibling relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1233–1254. 10.1177/2F0192513X06289103. [Google Scholar]
  48. Shalash, F. M., Wood, N. D., & Parker, T. S. (2013). Our problems are your sibling’s fault: Exploring the connections between conflict styles of siblings during adolescence and later adult committed relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 41(4), 288–298. 10.1080/01926187.2012.698205. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shortt, J. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Closeness in young adult sibling relationships: Affective and physiological responses. Social Development, 6(2), 142–164. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sommantico, M., Donizzetti, A. R., De Rosa, B., & Parrello, S. (2019). Young adults’ sibling relationships: Italian adaptation and validation of the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(2), 659–680. 10.1177/2F0265407517740640. [Google Scholar]
  51. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  52. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  53. Tomeny, T. S., Barry, T. D., & Fair, E. C. (2017). Parentification of adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Distress, sibling relationships attitudes, and the role of social support. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 42(4), 320–331. 10.3109/13668250.2016.1248376. [Google Scholar]
  54. Toseeb, U., McChesney, G., & Wolke, D. (2018). The prevalence and psychopathological correlates of sibling bullying in children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(7), 2308–2318. 10.1007/s10803-018-3484-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A. M., & Turner, H. (2013). Prevalence and correlates of sibling victimization types. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(4), 213–223. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Voorpostel, M., & van der Lippe, T. (2007). Support between siblings and between friends: Two worlds apart? Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1271–1282. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00446.x. [Google Scholar]
  57. Waldinger, R. J., Vaillant, G. E., & Orav, E. J. (2007). Childhood sibling relationships as a predictor of major depression in adulthood: A 30-year prospective study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(6), 949–954. 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Weaver, S. E., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (2003). The sibling relationship in young adulthood: Sibling functions and relationship perceptions as influenced by sibling pair composition. Journal of Family Issues, 24(2), 245–263. 10.1177/2F0192513X02250098. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional, and sexual trauma (2nd ed.). Sage.
  60. Winters, K. E. (2019). Physical and emotional sibling violence and child welfare: A critical realist exploratory study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (No. 13806345).
  61. Wolke, D., & Skew, A. J. (2011). Family factors, bullying victimisation and wellbeing in adolescents. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3(1), 101–119. 10.14301/llcs.v3i1.165. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not available.

Articles from Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES