800313

research-article2018
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260518800313Journal of Interpersonal ViolencePlamondon et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1­–23
Family Dynamics © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
and Young Adults’ sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260518800313
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518800313
Well-Being: The journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Mediating Role of
Sibling Bullying

Andréanne Plamondon, MA,1

Geneviève Bouchard, PhD,1
and Mylène Lachance-Grzela, PhD1

Abstract
Although a common form of family violence, sibling bullying is often viewed
as harmless by families and society. Consequently, it has not received as
much attention in research compared with peer bullying or other types
of family violence, such as interpartner violence, child abuse, and elder
abuse. Considering that sibling relationships have lasting effects on children’s
development, this retrospective study focused on the antecedents and
outcomes of sibling bullying. Grounded in family system theory and social
learning theory, it explored whether sibling bullying during childhood and
adolescence mediated the relationship between negative family dynamics
(i.e., sibling rivalry, interparental hostility, and parental hostility) and
young adults’ well-being (i.e., sense of competence, internalized problems,
self-esteem, and satisfaction with life). Data from 216 respondents were
analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results revealed that young
adults who reported higher levels of sibling rivalry and interparental hostility
were more likely to be victims of sibling bullying. In turn, sibling bullying was
associated with lower sense of competence, self-esteem, and life satisfaction,

1Université de Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Andréanne Plamondon, École de Psychologie, Université de Moncton, 18 Antonine-Maillet
Avenue, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 3E9.
Email: eap4361@umoncton.ca
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

as well as more internalized problems. Parents’ hostile behaviors toward

their children were not associated with sibling bullying but were negatively
associated with well-being in early adulthood. Our work underlines the
importance of harmonious family dynamics and the need for sibling bullying
to be taken more seriously by parents and family members. From a clinical
point of view, our findings suggest that clinicians and human service workers
should adopt a family-level approach when trying to reduce sibling bullying
and its negative outcomes by educating parents about the interdependence
of family relationships.

Keywords
family dynamics, sibling bullying, well-being, young adults

Sibling bullying is a type of aggressive behavior among siblings that is

repeated over time, intended both to cause harm and to dominate (Bowes,
Wolke, Joinson, Lereya, & Lewis, 2014). It includes emotional, physical, and
verbal aggressive behaviors (Hoetger, Hazen, & Brank, 2015; Tanrikulu &
Campbell, 2015). Sibling bullying has been reported to be the most com-
monly occurring form of family violence (Ensor, Marks, Jacobs, & Hughes,
2010; Mathis & Mueller, 2015; Tippett & Wolke, 2015), and one of the most
frequent types of aggression in society in general (Skinner & Kowalski,
2013). Yet, it is often viewed as harmless by parents and society (Pickering &
Sanders, 2017). Some authors even specified that sibling bullying is not only
accepted among family members but also expected and sometimes consid-
ered as being potentially beneficial for children’s development (Skinner &
Kowalski, 2013; Tucker & Kazura, 2013). In the scientific literature, it has
not received as much attention compared with peer bullying or other types of
family violence, such as interpartner violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.
Kiselica and Morrill-Richards (2007) even identified sibling bullying as a
“forgotten abuse.” However, a growing body of research conducted in the last
decade has revealed evidence of negative concurrent and long-term outcomes
of sibling bullying, such as greater mental health distress, as well as lower
social competence and self-worth (Bowes et al., 2014; Buist & Vermande,
2014; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013).
Considering that sibling bullying is a neglected issue despite its pervasive-
ness at home and its potential concurrent and long-term negative effects
(Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), the aim of the current study is to acquire infor-
mation about its risk factors and its adverse effects on well-being. More pre-
cisely, the objective of the current retrospective study is to examine whether
Plamondon et al. 3

and how sibling bullying during childhood and adolescence mediates the rela-
tionship between family dynamics and young adults’ well-being. By docu-
menting the complexity of sibling bullying, our hope is that the current study
will serve as an impetus for greater efforts to address the problem.

Sibling Bullying
Sibling bullying has been defined as aggressive behaviors between brothers
and sisters (e.g., hitting, throwing objects, name-calling, hostile arguing) that
are repeated over time to cause harm and to dominate (Bowes et al., 2014;
Menesini, Camodeca, & Nocentini, 2010; Monks et al., 2009; Skinner &
Kowalski, 2013). Researchers have used different terms to describe these
aggressive sibling interactions, such as bullying, aggression, violence, or
abuse (Tippett & Wolke, 2015). Thus, studies on aggressive sibling interac-
tions often included behaviors that fit the definition of bullying, but were not
labeled this way by the authors (Hoetger et al., 2015). For a matter of simplic-
ity, we used the term sibling bullying throughout the article when the concept
measured by the other researchers corresponded to the definition of sibling
bullying presented above (Hoetger et al., 2015; Monks et al., 2009).
Findings converge to indicate that sibling bullying is far more common
than peer bullying (Hoetger et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Skinner &
Kowalski, 2013; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015). The prevalence of sibling bul-
lying during childhood varies between studies ranging from 30% (Duncan,
1999) to 78% (Skinner & Kowalski, 2013). In contrast, 10% to 33% of stu-
dents reported having experienced bullying at school (Hymel & Swearer,
2015). Despite the prevalence of sibling bullying, Kiselica and Morrill-
Richards (2007) indicated that it is less likely to be reported outside the family
than peer bullying. Researchers argued that the lack of reporting outside the
home is part of the reason why sibling bullying has received far less attention
from researchers and practitioners than peer bullying (Hoetger et al., 2015).
Sibling bullying seems to take place for different reasons than peer bully-
ing, and the relation between the victim and the perpetrator varies remarkably
from one type of bullying to the other (Skinner & Kowalski, 2013). For
instance, it is easier for siblings, compared with peers, to provoke or upset
one another by exploiting the other’s weaknesses due to the amount of time
siblings spend together and how well they know each other (Ensor et al.,
2010; Tippett & Wolke, 2015). Thus, by comparison with peer bullying, per-
petration and victimization through sibling bullying are more strongly related,
indicating an almost reciprocal dimension to sibling bullying (Mathis &
Mueller, 2015; Skinner & Kowalski, 2013; Tippett & Wolke, 2015). This
reciprocal dimension makes the imbalance of power, an important criterion to
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

identify peer bullying, less central in sibling bullying. The differences

between the two types of bullying (i.e., peer bulling vs. sibling bullying) limit
the generalizability of the findings of the peer bullying literature to family
violence. This supports the need for studies that aim to shed light on the risk
factors and negative outcomes of sibling bullying.

Sibling Bullying and Negative Outcomes

Monks and colleagues (2009) stressed that the paucity of studies on sibling
bullying is surprising considering that the sibling relationship is considered
one of the key influences on children’s development (Buist & Vermande,
2014; Duncan, 1999; McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012; Tanrikulu &
Campbell, 2015; Tucker, Cox, et al., 2013; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, &
Shattuck, 2014). Researchers have documented time and time again the ben-
efits of close sibling relationships (Pike, Coldwell, & Dunn, 2005; Richmond,
Stocker, & Rienks, 2005) and the negative outcomes of destructive sibling
relationships (Button & Gealt, 2010; Garcia, Shaw, Winslow, & Yaggi, 2000;
Graham-Bermann, Cutler, Litzenberger, & Schwartz, 1994; Stocker, Burwell,
& Briggs, 2002). More precisely, a meta-analysis on child relationship qual-
ity showed that more warmth and less conflict between siblings are associ-
ated with less internalized and externalized problems (Buist, Deković, &
Prinzie, 2013).
The available literature on sibling bullying is in line with these findings.
Studies have linked sibling bullying to poorer mental and physical health, as
well as to lower academic and social competence (Buist & Vermande, 2014;
Duncan, 1999; Mathis & Mueller, 2015; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, &
Shattuck, 2013; Tucker, Van Gundy, Sharp, & Rebellon, 2015; Wiehe, 1997).
Bowes and colleagues’ (2014) findings also revealed that emerging adults
who were victims of sibling bullying during childhood were twice as likely to
develop depression and to report self-harming compared with individuals
who indicated that they were never bullied by a sibling. Similarly, respon-
dents who were asked how they felt their childhood sibling abuse affected
them as adults referred to poor self-esteem, as well as feelings of inferiority,
inadequacy, and worthlessness (Wiehe, 1997).

Family Dynamics and Sibling Bullying

The factors influencing sibling bullying are diverse, and researchers have
argued that parents’ behaviors are among the most important ones (Wolke,
Tippett, & Dantchev, 2015). Research in this area has been primarily guided
by two theoretical approaches: the family system theory (Cox & Paley, 1997,
Plamondon et al. 5

2003; Minuchin, 1988) and the social learning theory (Bandura, 1978). The
family system theory postulates that family members are interdependent and
continuously exert a mutual influence on one another, whereas the social
learning theory posits that children can learn aggressive behavior patterns
either directly through experience or indirectly by observing people around
them. Empirical findings support both theoretical approaches (Tippett &
Wolke, 2015; Tucker et al., 2014). More precisely, results have suggested that
high levels of conflict between family members increase the risk of sibling
bullying (Bowes et al., 2014; Menesini et al., 2010; Tippett & Wolke, 2015;
Tucker et al., 2014). Both parents’ interactions with their children and with
one another influence the incidence of sibling bullying. Specifically, negative
parenting behaviors, such as shouting, quarreling, and hitting, and greater
exposure to interparental conflict were strongly associated with sibling bully-
ing (Bowes et al., 2014; Hoffman, Kiecolt, & Edwards, 2005; Tippett &
Wolke, 2015; Tucker et al., 2014; Wolke et al., 2015). Sibling rivalry was also
linked to higher levels of sibling aggression (Tucker, Cox et al., 2013). In this
regard, many theorists “point to sibling rivalry as a root of sibling conflict”
(Whiteman, McHale, & Soli, 2011, p. 129).
These results highlight the crucial role of family dynamics in sibling rela-
tionships and the need to further explore these issues in the context of sibling
bullying. Although Tucker and colleagues (2014) have examined the influence
of family dynamics during childhood for sibling bullying, family dynamics,
sibling bullying, and well-being have yet to be studied simultaneously. Testing
the influence of family dynamics during childhood (or adolescence) on sibling
bullying and young adults’ psychological well-being is an important next step
in the literature of sibling bullying, as it will add to the existing knowledge
about the role of family dynamics on well-being later in life.

The Current Study

The objective of the current retrospective study is to bridge the gap in the lit-
erature by examining whether sibling bullying victimization mediates the rela-
tionship between family dynamics and young adults’ current well-being.
Because children and adolescents are similarly affected by many forms of
sibling aggression (Tucker, Finkelhor, Shattuck, & Turner, 2013), we chose to
focus on young adults’ recalled experiences of sibling bullying during child-
hood and adolescence. In this study, family dynamics were operationalized by
sibling rivalry, interparental hostility, and parental hostility, whereas well-
being was operationalized by levels of sense of competence, internalized
problems, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life. These indicators of family
dynamics and of well-being were selected on account of their significance in
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

the fields of family psychology, family violence, and developmental psychol-

ogy. In accordance with the family system theory, the social learning theory,
and previous research (Bowes et al., 2014; Buist & Vermande, 2014; Mathis
& Mueller, 2015; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter,
2000; Tippett & Wolke, 2015; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013),
we expected that negative family dynamics would be associated with more
experiences of sibling bullying, which in turn would be negatively associated
with young adults’ well-being.

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 244 French–Canadian young adult univer-
sity students. Twenty individuals were excluded from all analyses because
they had not reported their gender, their number of siblings, or their birth
order. Furthermore, respondents who did not complete all the questionnaires
or who failed to answer more than 80% of the items in a questionnaire were
also excluded (n = 8) from all analyses, leaving a final sample of 216 indi-
viduals. The remaining participants (44 males and 172 females) were living
in New Brunswick and their mean age was 19.01 years (minimum = 17, max-
imum = 33, SD = 2.01). Participants were predominantly Caucasian and 65%
were undergraduate first-year university students (M = 1.70 completed uni-
versity years, SD = 1.26). On average, they had 1.81 siblings (SD = 1.53) and
were mostly the first-born (45% of the sample) or second-born (39% of the
sample) child. Fifty-five percent of the participants were still living in the
parental home. The vast majority of participants (69% of the sample) lived in
a family of origin with two parents in a first marriage, 7% had parents who
cohabited together without being married, 3% reported the death of one par-
ent (mostly during their adolescence or adulthood), and 20% had parents who
were divorced/separated (mostly during childhood). Almost half (47%) of the
respondents in non-intact families revealed that they lived in a blended fam-
ily following their parents’ divorce or separation. The highest level of educa-
tion most commonly completed by mothers and fathers was an associate’s
degree (33% and 40%, respectively).

Procedure
Prior to conducting the research, a certification of compliance with ethical
principles was obtained from the institutional research ethics board of the
university at which the research was done. The research was conducted in
Plamondon et al. 7

accordance with the approved protocol. The following criteria were used to
select participants for the current study to form a convenience sample: having
at least one sibling and being able to report on one’s experience with both
parents in the family of origin. Participants were recruited via announce-
ments in lectures in many departments of a Canadian university. Participants
were informed that they would be participating in a study on family dynamics
during their childhood and adolescent years and on their current psychologi-
cal functioning. This study was not about the current situation at home, as
sibling bullying tends to diminish with age (Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod,
2006; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015; Tucker, Finkelhor, Shattuck, & Turner,
2013). Participants first consented and then completed the questionnaires (in
French) measuring demographic variables, sibling rivalry, interparental hos-
tility, parental hostility, sibling bullying, sense of competence, internalized
problems, self-esteem, and life satisfaction.

Measures
Demographic variables and characteristics of the family of origin. Participants
provided relevant background data, such as their age, number of siblings, and
birth order. Participants were also asked to report their parents’ current mari-
tal status and educational levels.

Family dynamics
Sibling rivalry. We used the rivalry scale of the Sibling Relationship
Inventory developed by Stocker and McHale (1992; Perlmutter, Touliatos,
& Holden, 2001) to measure sibling rivalry. The four-item scale assessed
respondents’ belief that their parents treated them unfairly and inequitably
in comparison with the treatment of their siblings (e.g., “Many kids com-
plain that their mothers aren’t fair about how they treat them compared to
how they treat their brothers and sisters. How often did you feel that your
mother treated your siblings better than she treated you?”; “How about with
your father? How often did you think that he treated your siblings better
than he treated you?”). Items were answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale
where 1 = hardly ever, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = pretty often,
and 5 = always. Overall scores were calculated by taking the average of the
four items, with higher scores indicating greater sibling rivalry. In the current
study, the alpha coefficient was .77.

Interparental hostility. This construct was assessed using the interparental

hostility scale developed by Simons, Simons, Lei, Hancock, and Fincham
(2012). The six-item scale asked respondents to report how often during
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

their childhood and adolescent years their parents engaged in various hostile
behaviors (e.g., “Shouted or yelled at each other because they were mad”)
when interacting with each other. Responses were 0 = almost never or never,
1 = once in a while, 2 = quite often, 3 = often, and 4 = almost always. The sum
of the six items produced an overall score. A higher score indicated a higher
level of hostile interparental behaviors. An earlier version of this scale has
been shown to correlate with observational assessments of marital interaction
(Simons et al., 2012). The scale’s internal reliability for the current sample
was very good (α = .90).

Parental hostility. The hostility displayed by parents toward the respondent

was assessed separately using items developed by Simons et al. (2012). Mater-
nal hostility was measured using a four-item scale that asked respondents to
report how often during their childhood and adolescent years their mother (a)
shouted or yelled at them, (b) criticized their ideas, (c) called them bad names,
and (d) insulted or swore at them. The same items were used to assess paternal
hostility. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale, in which 0 =
almost never or never, 1 = once in a while, 2 = often, 3 = quite often, and 4 =
almost always. In the current study, overall scores were determined by taking
the sum of the maternal and paternal hostility items, with higher scores indi-
cating a higher level of parental hostility. An earlier version of this scale has
been shown to have high validity and reliability. For instance, child reports
correlated with parent reports and with observer ratings (Simons et al., 2012).
Reliability analyses indicated an alpha of .75 for our sample.

Sibling bullying. Sibling bullying was assessed with a standard questionnaire,

the Sibling Bullying Questionnaire (Wolke & Samara, 2004), which was
adapted from the widely used Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus,
2007). The questionnaire comprises seven items. Respondents were first
asked to report (a) how often they had been bullied at home by a sibling dur-
ing their childhood and adolescence. They then reported the frequency of the
six following types of sibling victimization: (b) being hit, kicked, pushed or
shoved around, or threatened; (c) having things damaged or taken, including
money; (d) being called nasty and hateful names; (e) being made fun of; (f)
being ignored or left out of their sibling’s social group; and (g) being told lies,
having rumors spread about them, or believing that others do not love them.
Responses were as follows: 1 = never, 2 = only once or twice, 3 = two or three
times a month, 4 = about once a week, and 5 = several times a week. Overall
scores were calculated by taking the average of the seven items, with higher
scores indicating higher frequency of sibling bullying. The alpha coefficient
for the current study was .85.
Plamondon et al. 9

Well-being
Sense of competence. Respondents reported their sense of competence,
which included feelings of global mastery and efficacy to navigate challenges.
This construct was measured by the Mastery Scale, a seven-item scale con-
structed by Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, and Mullan (1981). Respondents
were asked to evaluate how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of
statements about themselves. The responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree and consisted of items like: “There is really no way I can
solve some of the problems I have” (reverse scored) and “What happens to me
in the future mostly depends on me.” Overall scores were calculated by taking
the average of the seven items, with higher scores indicating greater sense of
competence. Results have shown that a sense of competence, as measured by
this scale, can buffer the emotional impact of persistent problems (Seeman,
1991). The alpha reliability was .75 for the current sample.

Internalized problems. We measured internalized problems using the

Anxiety and Depression subscales of the Psychiatric Symptom Index (Ilfeld,
1976). Each of the two scales contains seven items (e.g., “During the past
week, how often did you feel nervous or shaky inside?” for anxiety; “During
the past week, how often did you feel downhearted or blue?” for depression),
which are scored using a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = never and 3 = very
often). Overall scores of internalized problems were determined by taking
the sum of the 14 items, with higher scores reflecting more severe levels of
internalized problems. In the current study, the instrument demonstrates high
internal consistency (α = .88).

Self-esteem. The French version of the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem

Scale was used to measure respondents’ global feelings of self-worth or self-
acceptance (Vallières & Vallerand, 1990). It contains 10 items (e.g., “I take a
positive attitude toward myself”; “I am able to do things as well as most other
people”). The questionnaire is scored using a 4-point response format (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree). The sum
of the 10 items produced an overall score, with higher scores representing
higher self-esteem. Its ease of administration, scoring, and brevity led Blas-
covich and Tomaka (1991) to recommend the use of this scale as a straight-
forward estimate of positive and negative feelings about the self. In fact, it is
the standard against which new measures are evaluated (e.g., Bazińska, 2015;
Kazarian, 2009). Reliability analyses indicated an alpha of .87.

Satisfaction with life. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) comprises five items (e.g., “In most ways my life
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 1. Description of Sibling Bullying.

Frequency of Bullying, n (%)

Only Once 2 or 3 Times About Once Several Times

Type of Bullying Never or Twice a Month a Week a Week

Sibling bullying in general 156 (72.2) 37 (17.1) 8 (3.7) 11 (5.1) 4 (1.9)

Hit, kicked, pushed, or 145 (67.1) 47 (21.8) 17 (7.9) 6 (2.8) 1 (0.5)
shoved
Things damaged or taken 144 (66.8) 58 (26.9) 9 (4.2) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.4)
Called names 123 (56.9) 56 (25.9) 17 (7.9) 17 (7.9) 3 (1.4)
Made fun of 74 (34.3) 89 (41.2) 28 (13.0) 14 (6.5) 11 (5.1)
Ignored or left out 148 (68.5) 50 (23.1) 10 (4.6) 5 (2.3) 3 (1.4)
Lied to or had rumors 185 (85.6) 24 (11.1) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.4) 2 (0.9)
spread about them

is close to my ideal”), which are scored using a 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The questionnaire
is narrowly focused to assess global life satisfaction and does not tap related
constructs such as positive affect or loneliness. Respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the five statements.
Responses to these items were averaged to measure global life satisfaction.
The higher the overall score on the questionnaire, the more satisfied was the
participant. In the current study, the alpha coefficient was .82.

Results
For all questionnaires, missing values were replaced with the participant’s
mean score when 80% of the items on the scale or subscale in question were
answered (n = 15).

Prevalence of Sibling Bullying

Although not a primary focus of the current study, we first examined the
prevalence of sibling aggression (see Table 1). When asked about sibling bul-
lying in general, around 28% of our sample reported being bullied by their
siblings during childhood and adolescence: 17% reported being bullied only
once or twice, 4% reported being bullied 2 or 3 times a month, 5% reported
being bullied about once a week, and 2% reported being bullied several times
a week. Yet statistics related to the different types of aggression showed that
79% reported experiencing at least some acts of sibling bullying during their
childhood and adolescence. Verbal bullying (i.e., being called names and
Plamondon et al. 11

Table 2. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Family dynamics: IVs

1. Parental hostility 4.09 3.59
2. Interparental hostility 5.22 4.97 .56***
3. Sibling rivalry 1.77 0.78 .38*** .21***
Mediator
4. Sibling bullying 1.55 0.63 .24*** .29*** .25***
Well-being: DVs
5. Sense of competence 3.81 0.66 −.32*** −.30*** −.30*** −.29***
6. Internalized problems 10.83 7.85 .30*** .29*** .15** .21*** −.44***
7. Self-esteem 31.44 5.48 −.30*** −.24*** −.36*** −.29*** .51*** −.60***
8. Life satisfaction 5.20 1.06 −.35*** −.29*** −.24*** −.26*** .53*** −.50*** .60***

Note. IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.

being made fun of) was reported more frequently than physical bullying (i.e.,
being hit, kicked, pushed or shoved, and having things damaged or taken) and
social bullying (i.e., being ignored or left out and being lied to or having
rumors spread about them), with being made fun of by their sibling as the
most commonly reported act of aggression (see Table 1 for percentages).

Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson bivariate correlations are presented
in Table 2. On average, young adults reported having been occasionally
treated unfairly by their parents in comparison with their siblings, as mea-
sured by sibling rivalry, and having witnessed interparental hostility once in
a while. The mean frequency of parental hostility fell between “almost never”
and “once in a while.” Inspection of Table 2 also reveals a low average report
of acts of sibling aggression during childhood and adolescence, and moder-
ately high scores on the well-being measures.
As shown in Table 2, all correlations between key variables were signifi-
cant. More precisely, negative family dynamics during childhood and adoles-
cence were positively correlated with sibling bullying. The more participants
perceived issues of sibling rivalry and were exposed to parental and interpa-
rental hostility, the more they reported being victims of sibling bullying.
Negative family dynamics and sibling bullying were also positively correlated
with internalized problems, and negatively correlated with sense of compe-
tence, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Correlations between predicted vari-
ables in the model and some demographic data (e.g., age, gender, number of
siblings, birth order in the family, and nationality) were also analyzed (not
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

shown in Table 2) to empirically select the appropriate covariates (Hair,

Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). These corre-
lations revealed that gender was significantly associated with internalized
problems (r = –.18, p < .05), such that women reported more internalized
problems than men. Number of siblings (r = .15, p < .05) was positively asso-
ciated with self-esteem, while birth order was marginally associated with sib-
ling bullying (r = .13, p < .06). Considering these relations, gender, number of
siblings, and birth order were entered as covariates for the associated pre-
dicted variables in our model.

Structural Equation Analyses

Path analysis models were tested in the EQS 6.2 program using the maxi-
mum-likelihood robust estimation method, a technique recommended by Hu
and Bentler (1999) for samples of 250 participants or less. The overall model
fit was evaluated using local fit estimators and goodness-of-fit indices (Kline,
2016). Acceptable fit is indicated by a relative Satorra–Bentler (S-B) χ2 value
(χ2 / df) inferior or equal to 2.0 or 3.0, a value superior to .90 on the goodness
of fit index (GFI) and the robust comparative fit index (CFI), a standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) smaller than .08, and a robust root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) smaller than .07 (Hooper, Coughlan,
& Mullen, 2008).
The proposed mediational model linking negative family dynamics during
childhood and adolescence to measures of current well-being through sibling
bullying was first tested. All paths were significant, with the exception of the
path between parental hostility and sibling bullying (see Figure 1). As revealed
by the global fit indices presented in Table 3, the proposed model did not reach
acceptability. Results of the Wald test led us to drop the nonsignificant path
between parental hostility and sibling bullying. However, removing parental
hostility from the model did not lead to a significant improvement in fit (rela-
tive S-B χ2 = 2.38, GFI = .94, robust CFI = .88, SRMR = .09, robust RMSEA
= .08). Because the standardized residual matrix of the proposed mediational
model indicated strong theoretically plausible relations between parental hos-
tility and all measures of well-being (Polcari, Rabi, Bolger, & Teicher, 2014),
parental hostility was added as a covariate for the four dependent variables in
our final model. Adding parental hostility as a covariate has the advantage of
removing predictable variance from the dependent variables’ error terms
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The final model presented in Figure 2 provided
a good fit for the data (see Table 3). All paths were significant and all good-
ness-of-fit indices indicated acceptability.
Plamondon et al. 13

Internalized -.13
Gender
problems
Parental
hostility .05

.21
Sense of
-.2
9 competence
Interparental .23 Sibling
hostility bullying -.26
Life
.19 satisfaction

-.3
0
Sibling rivalry .14

.16 Number of
Self-esteem
siblings
Birth order

Figure 1. The original mediational path model.

Note. All values represent standardized parameter estimates. A solid line indicates a significant
effect (p < .05) and a dashed line indicates a nonsignificant effect. For gender, 0 = female and
1 = male.

Table 3. Fit Indices for All Tested Models.

Relative Robust RMSEA

Model S-B χ2 GFI Robust CFI SRMR [90% CI]
1. Original path model 2.49 .93 .88 .10 .08
[.06, .11]
2. Final path model 1.93 .95 .93 .05 .07
[.04, .09]

Note. S-B χ2 = Satorra–Bentler χ2; GFI = goodness of fit index; CFI = comparative fit index;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; CI = confidence interval.

A Satorra–Bentler scaled χ2 difference test was used to compare the pro-

posed model and the final model (Satorra & Bentler, 2010). The test showed
that the final model was significantly superior to the proposed model, ΔS-B
χ2(3) = 43.66, p < .05, and was therefore retained. This model accounted for
14.5% of variance in sibling bullying, 14.7% of variance in sense of compe-
tence, 14% of variance in internalized problems, 15.5% of variance in satis-
faction with life, and 16.7% of variance in self-esteem.
The results suggest that interparental hostility and sibling rivalry during
childhood and adolescence predict experiences of sibling bullying, which in
turn predict young adults’ well-being. Moreover, all covariates reached the
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Internalized -.15
Gender
problems

.28
.14
Interparental Sense of
.25 -.27
hostility -.2
2 competence
Sibling Parental
bullying -.19 hostility
.20 -.31
Life
Sibling rivalry
satisfaction

5
-.2

-.2
5
.14

.17 Number of
Self-esteem
siblings
Birth order

Figure 2. The final path model with parental hostility entered as a covariate.
Note. All values represent standardized parameter estimates. All parameters are significant
(p < .05). For gender, 0 = female and 1 = male.

threshold of significance in the final model. Women reported more internal-

ized problems than men and later born children reported more experiences of
sibling victimization than earlier born children. Number of siblings was posi-
tively associated with self-esteem. Finally, parental hostility was associated
with higher internalized problems, and lower sense of competence, life satis-
faction, and self-esteem.

Discussion
The aim of the current study was to examine a theoretical model of risk fac-
tors and outcomes of sibling bullying victimization. The hypothesized model,
in which sibling bullying served as a mediator, postulated indirect effects
between negative family dynamics during childhood and adolescence, and
young adults’ well-being. More precisely, we expected that negative family
dynamics would be associated with more experiences of sibling bullying,
which in turn would be negatively associated with young adults’ well-being.
Statistical analyses revealed that the original model could be improved by
dropping the path between parental hostility and sibling bullying. Yet the fit
did not reach acceptability by removing parental hostility from the model. In
the final model, parental hostility was treated as a covariate given its associa-
tion with adolescents’ psychological outcomes (Polcari et al., 2014). The
final path model provided an acceptable fit for the data. Partially confirming
our hypothesis, our results suggest that the relationship between family
dynamics and young adults’ well-being is, in part, mediated by experiences
Plamondon et al. 15

of sibling bullying. The indirect pathways linking family dynamics to mea-

sures of well-being are further discussed below.
Researchers previously stated that parents’ behaviors were the most con-
sistent family factor affecting experiences of sibling bullying (Wolke et al.,
2015). Our results add support to the few studies that have shown that family
dynamics are linked to sibling bullying during childhood and adolescence
(Bowes et al., 2014; Hoffman et al., 2005; Tucker et al., 2014). First, our
results revealed that rivalry between siblings was associated with more expe-
riences of sibling bullying. The positive relation between sibling rivalry and
sibling bullying suggests that conflictual and aggressive interactions between
siblings “might be motivated by inequality and a desire to improve one’s
status” (Wolke et al., 2015, p. 922). Second, we observed that young adults
who reported higher levels of conflict between their parents were more likely
to be victims of sibling bullying. This finding is consistent with those of pre-
vious studies (Bowes et al., 2014; Tucker et al., 2014; Wolke et al., 2015).
Moreover, the fact that the parental relationship is linked to the way children
interacted with their siblings is in accordance with the social learning theory
(Bandura, 1978). These findings are also in line with the family system the-
ory (Cox & Paley, 1997, 2003; Minuchin, 1988), which postulates that indi-
viduals and subsystems in a family continuously influence one another.
The analysis of the relationship between sibling bullying and measures of
well-being also converged with those of past studies (Bowes et al., 2014;
Buist & Vermande, 2014; Duncan, 1999; Finkelhor et al., 2006; Mathis &
Mueller, 2015; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013; Wiehe, 1997),
showing that experiences of sibling bullying were associated with negative
outcomes, even after controlling for demographic variables and parental hos-
tility. More precisely, victims of sibling bullying reported lower sense of
competence, lower self-esteem, lower life satisfaction, and higher internal-
ized problems. These results are not surprising considering the central role of
siblings in the lives of individuals across all stages of life (Dunn, 1983;
Milevsky, 2011; Van Volkom, 2006; Whiteman et al., 2011). Given these
results, it goes without saying that sibling bullying needs to be taken more
seriously by parents and the general public.
Taken together, our findings support, albeit only partially, our hypothesis
on the mediating role of sibling bullying in the relationship between negative
family dynamics and young adults’ well-being. In terms of the observed
mediating effects, we found that exposure to interparental conflict and sibling
rivalry are linked to more experiences of sibling bullying, which in turn are
associated with lower sense of competence, self-esteem, and satisfaction with
life, as well as more internalized problems.
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Although we predicted that all three family dynamic measures would

influence young adults’ well-being through experiences of sibling bullying,
our analysis suggest that this was not the case for parental hostility. More
precisely, our results showed that the relationship between parental hostility
and sibling bullying was nonsignificant. These findings appear to contradict
those of Tippett and Wolke (2015) and Tucker and colleagues (2014), which
showed that harsh parenting (e.g., shouting, quarreling, and spanking)
increased experiences of sibling bullying. However, considering that the
bivariate correlation between parental hostility and sibling bullying was sig-
nificant in the current study, our results rather suggest that a large portion of
the effect of parental hostility on sibling bullying was explained by the other
measures of family dynamics. We also believe that this unexpected result
could be explained by the types of victimization measured by the three family
dynamics. Specifically, parental hostility is the only family dynamic mea-
sured in this study in which acts of parental aggression were aimed directly at
the respondents. This could explain why the negative interactions between
parents and their children, measured by parental hostility, was related to the
victim’s well-being, without having to go through sibling bullying. Moreover,
although parental hostility did not influence measures of well-being through
sibling bullying, the results of this study suggested that parental hostility was
an important covariate in the final model. More precisely, the strong relations
between parental hostility and measures of well-being significantly increased
the fit of the final model by removing predictable variance from the depen-
dent variables’ error terms (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Although not directly tied to the primary goal of the current study, we also
examined the prevalence of sibling bullying reported by young adults. We
found that 17% of our sample reported one or two experiences of sibling bul-
lying and 11% reported being frequently bullied by their siblings (at least 2 or
3 times a month). These results are somewhat low in comparison with the
prevalence previously noted with similar samples (see Wolke et al., 2015, for
a summary of previous work). Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility
that sibling bullying could have been underreported in the current study. If this
was the case, it could have limited our ability to detect existent relationships
between variables. Despite this possibility, there was adequate variability in
the responses to items measuring sibling bullying and significant associations
were found with other variables of interest. Furthermore, it is interesting to
note that the frequency estimates of specific types of sibling aggressive behav-
iors (see Table 1) were higher than those obtained when asking a generic ques-
tion about sibling bullying. These findings are in line with Hoetger and
colleagues’ (2015) results, which indicated that a majority of college students
did not consider sibling aggressive behaviors to be bullying.
Plamondon et al. 17

Limitations and Future Directions

As with all studies, the present work has a number of limitations. First, our
interpretations were limited by our inability to infer causal relationships.
Although path analyses suggest directions of influence, all data were col-
lected at the same time. Therefore, our results can only demonstrate the
acceptability of the tested directional paths. Another limitation is that ret-
rospective reports may have introduced accuracy bias given the amount of
time passed since childhood. Experiences of sibling bullying may not have
been reported or remembered accurately as a result of the evolution and
the current quality of the participants’ relationship with their siblings.
Participants may have answered the questions while thinking about their
relationship in general, rather than focusing on the years in which sibling
bullying was more frequent. A longitudinal study would likely improve the
accuracy of our findings and allow clearer conclusions about causality. In
addition, our study relied on young adults’ self-reports, which could inflate
covariations among variables. However, direct behavior measures of inter-
actions between family members are often limited to smaller samples
(Gardner, 2000), which inhibits the use of more powerful statistical analy-
ses, such as structural equation modeling. Our work focused on experi-
ences of sibling victimization, yet siblings are frequently both victims and
perpetrators. Future research could include both experiences of bullying to
gain a better understanding of the associations between family dynamics,
sibling bullying, and young adults’ well-being. Another limitation relates
to the fact that we used data from young adults, mostly women, registered
at a Canadian university, and the findings may not be generalizable to
those from other social contexts. Furthermore, although we have provided
support for the idea that family dynamics and experiences of sibling bully-
ing provide information about one’s well-being, these are only a few of the
important variables. Therefore, a large proportion of the variance of sib-
ling bullying and of well-being was left unexplained in our final model.
Young adults’ well-being is also the result of events and circumstances not
included in the model under study, such as parental divorce (Amato, 2001)
or peer victimization (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015).
Future research should investigate whether additional factors could con-
tribute to the prediction of sibling bullying (such as, for instance, parenting
intervention style and parental warmth). Documenting whether sibling bully-
ing and parental hostility are associated with other measures of well-being or
psychosocial functioning (such as perceived stress and quality of the current
sibling relationship) or specific mental health disorders (such as posttrau-
matic stress disorder or adjustment disorders) is also of interest.
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Implications
From a clinical point of view, our study supports the notion that therapeu-
tic interventions and prevention techniques for parents should include
education about the interdependence of family relationships and the link
between family dynamics, sibling bullying, and young adults’ well-being.
Knowledge about the salience of parental relations in promoting healthy
relationships between siblings is also critical to the development of effec-
tive interventions in the sibling-bullying field, as parents are often
unaware of their implication in the process of sibling bullying among
their children (Pickering & Sanders, 2017). Parent management training
programs can also serve as an opportunity to help parents support their
children in developing effective conflict management strategies (Shadik,
Perkins, & Kovacs, 2013).

Conclusion
Our work significantly adds to the literature by investigating the effect of the
interplay of family dynamics and sibling bullying on young adults’ well-
being. This study shows that disharmonious interactions between some fam-
ily members can influence young adults’ well-being indirectly through sibling
bullying. Clinicians and human service workers aiming to reduce bullying
between siblings should advocate for a family-level approach by incorporat-
ing the underlying principles of the family system theory and the social learn-
ing theory into their clinical interventions. Further research in this area should
be conducted to learn more about the risk factors and psychological outcomes
of sibling bullying and to develop effective programs aimed at preventing
and reducing this form of bullying.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jolène Doucet, Karine Perron, Karine Roy, and
Jannie Thibodeau for their assistance in running participants and in data entry.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Plamondon et al. 19

References
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato
and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.
doi:10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.355
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication,
28, 12-29. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x
Bazińska, R. (2015). Validation of the polish version of the collective self-esteem
scale. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 3, 125-137. doi:10.5114/
cipp.2015.52891
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psycho-
logical attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bowes, L., Wolke, D., Joinson, C., Lereya, S. T., & Lewis, G. (2014). Sibling bully-
ing and risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm: A prospective cohort study.
Pediatrics, 134, e1032-1039. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-0832
Buist, K. L., Deković, M., & Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and psy-
chopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 33, 97-106. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.007
Buist, K. L., & Vermande, M. (2014). Sibling relationship patterns and their asso-
ciations with child competence and problem behavior. Journal of Family
Psychology, 28, 529-537. doi:10.1037/a0036990
Button, D. M., & Gealt, R. (2010). High risk behaviors among victims of sibling
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 131-140. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-
9276-x
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology,
48, 243-267. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 12, 193-196. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01259
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction
with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and
extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 871-886. doi:10
.1177/088626099014008005
Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54,
787-811. doi:10.2307/1129886
Ensor, R., Marks, A., Jacobs, L., & Hughes, C. (2010). Trajectories of antisocial
behaviour towards siblings predict antisocial behaviour towards peers. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1208-1216. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2010.02276.x
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2006). Kid’s stuff: The nature and impact of
peer and sibling violence on younger and older children. Child Abuse & Neglect,
30, 1401-1421. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.006
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Garcia, M. M., Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., & Yaggi, K. E. (2000). Destructive sibling
conflict and the development of conduct problems in young boys. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 44-53. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.44
Gardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent–
child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of par-
ticipants? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 185-198. doi:10
.1023/A:1009503409699
Graham-Bermann, S. A., Cutler, S. E., Litzenberger, B. W., & Schwartz, W. E. (1994).
Perceived conflict and violence in childhood sibling relationships and later emo-
tional adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 85-97. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.8.1.85
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analyses (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoetger, L. A., Hazen, K. P., & Brank, E. M. (2015). All in the family: A retro-
spective study comparing sibling bullying and peer bullying. Journal of Family
Violence, 30, 103-111. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9651-0
Hoffman, K. L., Kiecolt, K. J., & Edwards, J. N. (2005). Physical violence between
siblings: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 26,
1103-1130. doi:10.1177/0192513X05277809
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 70, 293-299. doi:10.1037/a0038928
Ilfeld, F. W. (1976). Further validation of a psychiatric symptom index in a normal pop-
ulation. Psychological Reports, 39, 1215-1228. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1215
Johnson, R. M., Duncan, D. T., Rothman, E. F., Gilreath, T. D., Hemenway, D.,
Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2015). Fighting with siblings and with peers among
urban high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2221-2237.
doi:10.1177/0886260514552440
Kazarian, S. S. (2009). Arabic contingencies of self-worth: Arabic translation and
validation of the contingencies of Self-Worth Scale in Lebanese youth. The Arab
Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 123-134.
Kiselica, M. S., & Morrill-Richards, M. (2007). Sibling maltreatment: The forgot-
ten abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 148-160. doi:10.1002
/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00457.x
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mathis, G., & Mueller, C. (2015). Childhood sibling aggression and emotional dif-
ficulties and aggressive behavior in adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 30,
315-327. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9670-5
Plamondon et al. 21

McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer vic-
timization in childhood and adolescence. American Psychologist, 70, 300-310.
doi:10.1037/a0039174
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A.
C. (2000). When does parents’ differential treatment have negative implications
for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149-172. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00117
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships
and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family,
74, 913-930. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x
Menesini, E., Camodeca, M., & Nocentini, A. (2010). Bullying among siblings: The
role of personality and relational variables. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 28, 921-939. doi:10.1348/026151009X479402
Milevsky, A. (2011). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence: Predictors
and outcomes. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Minuchin, P. (1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on
development. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within
families: Mutual influences (pp. 7-26). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009).
Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 146-156. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004
Olweus, D. (2007). The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress pro-
cess. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. doi:10.2307/2136676
Perlmutter, B. F., Touliatos, J., & Holden, G. W. (2001). Handbook of family mea-
surement techniques: Instruments & index (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pickering, J. A., & Sanders, M. R. (2017). Integrating parents’ views on sibling rela-
tionships to tailor an evidence-based parenting intervention for sibling conflict.
Family Process, 56, 105-125. doi:10.1111/famp.12173
Pike, A., Coldwell, J., & Dunn, J. F. (2005). Sibling relationships in early/middle
childhood: Links with individual adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19,
523-532. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.523
Polcari, A., Rabi, K., Bolger, E., & Teicher, M. H. (2014). Parental verbal affection
and verbal aggression in childhood differentially influence psychiatric symp-
toms and wellbeing in young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 91-102.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.003
Richmond, M. K., Stocker, C. M., & Rienks, S. L. (2005). Longitudinal associations
between sibling relationship quality, parental differential treatment, and children’s
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 550-559. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.19.4.550
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference
chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243-248. doi:10.1007/S11336-009-
9135-Y
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Seeman, M. (1991). Alienation and anomie. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.

Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes
(pp. 291-371). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shadik, J. A., Perkins, N. H., & Kovacs, P. J. (2013). Incorporating discussion of
sibling violence in the curriculum of parent intervention programs for child abuse
and neglect. Health & Social Work, 38, 53-57. doi:10.1093/hsw/hls066
Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Lei, M.-K., Hancock, D. L., & Fincham, F. D.
(2012). Parental warmth amplifies the negative effect of parental hostil-
ity on dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2603-2626.
doi:10.1177/0886260512436387
Skinner, J. A., & Kowalski, R. M. (2013). Profiles of sibling bullying. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1726-1736. doi:10.1177/0886260512468327
Stocker, C. M., Burwell, R. A., & Briggs, M. L. (2002). Sibling conflict in middle
childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 16, 50-57. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.1.50
Stocker, C. M., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature and family correlates of pre-
adolescents’ perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 9, 179-195. doi:10.1177/0265407592092002
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tanrikulu, I., & Campbell, M. A. (2015). Sibling bullying perpetration: Associations
with gender, grade, peer perpetration, trait anger, and moral disengagement. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1010-1024. doi:10.1177/0886260514539763
Tippett, N., & Wolke, D. (2015). Aggression between siblings: Associations with
the home environment and peer bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 14-24.
doi:10.1002/ab.21557
Tucker, C. J., Cox, G., Sharp, E. H., Van Gundy, K. T., Rebellon, C., & Stracuzzi, N.
F. (2013). Sibling proactive and reactive aggression in adolescence. Journal of
Family Violence, 28, 299-310. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9483-8
Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A. M., & Turner, H. (2013). Prevalence and
correlates of sibling victimization types. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 213-223.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.006
Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Shattuck, A. (2013). Association of sib-
ling aggression with child and adolescent mental health. Pediatrics, 132, 79-84.
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3801
Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Shattuck, A. M. (2014). Family dynamics
and young children’s sibling victimization. Journal of Family Psychology, 28,
625-633. doi:10.1037/fam0000016
Tucker, C. J., & Kazura, K. (2013). Parental responses to school-aged children’s sib-
ling conflict. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 737-745. doi:10.1007/
s10826-013-9741-2
Tucker, C. J., Van Gundy, K., Sharp, E. H., & Rebellon, C. (2015). Brief report:
Physical health of adolescent perpetrators of sibling aggression. Journal of
Adolescence, 45, 171-173. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.007
Plamondon et al. 23

Vallières, E. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Traduction et validation canadienne-fran-

çaise de l’Échelle de l’estime de soi de Rosenberg [The French-Canadian transla-
tion and validation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale]. International Journal of
Psychology, 25, 305-316. doi:10.1080/00207599008247865
Van Volkom, M. (2006). Sibling relationships in middle and older adulthood.
Marriage & Family Review, 40, 151-170. doi:10.1300/J002v40n02_08
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Soli, A. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on sib-
ling relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 124-139. doi:10.1111/
j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x
Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional, and sexual trauma
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wolke, D., & Samara, M. M. (2004). Bullied by siblings: Association with peer
victimisation and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school chil-
dren. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1015-1029. doi:10.1111
/j.1469-7610.2004.t01-1-00293.x
Wolke, D., Tippett, N., & Dantchev, S. (2015). Bullying in the family: Sibling bul-
lying. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 917-929. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00262-X

Author Biographies
Andréanne Plamondon, MA, is a doctoral student at the Université de Moncton. Her
research interest focuses on family and romantic relationships.
Geneviève Bouchard, PhD, is a full professor of psychology at the Université de
Moncton. Her research focuses mainly on family psychology, couple psychology,
psychopathology, and well-being.
Mylène Lachance-Grzela, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Psychology
at the Université de Moncton. Her interests involve interpersonal relationships, par-
enting, and psychological well-being.