Summary of the thematic analysis

The analysis revealed a wealth of information in relation to the experience of sibling aggression. Play fighting and sibling aggression were distinguished by the enjoyment reported from engaging in play fighting behaviours and negative

emotions (e.g. frustration, anger and fear) reported for sibling aggression. Additional factors of age and solving a disagreement were also found to distinguish between the two behaviours. Each of these has highlighted a function or motivation behind sibling aggression, unlike play fighting.

The normalisation of sibling aggression was also shown in the accounts of participants and their reflections on their parents. Firstly, some participants demonstrated this in the way that they attributed their involvement in these behaviours to gender role stereotypes. Parents were also reported to have showed this in the way that they intervened in the behaviours, with no intervention being interpreted as permission for the behaviours to occur in the family home. Even when parents did intervene, however, this was not always effective in ending sibling aggression. This, alongside the reflection of socially dominant behaviours in both the sources of conflict between siblings and the maintenance of a higher status of

5.4. Discussion

This study aimed to qualitatively explore the experience of sibling aggression, specifically looking at how participants retrospectively described and conceptualised their experiences. Three key themes associated with the experience of sibling

aggression were identified through the thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews. The factors of normalisation, dominance and the distinction between play and aggression were important with respect to the experience of sibling aggression. A status of dominance was an important factor, maintained using socially dominant behaviours and using parents as a tool. Aggressive behaviours between siblings were often normalised through endorsement of gender role stereotypes and the way that parents intervened. Finally, the distinction between play and sibling aggression was made using emotion, the need to solve a disagreement and being young in age to describe sibling aggression.

The findings from this study are important when exploring the prevalence of sibling aggression. Current measures of aggression between siblings are based on the traditional family violence measures that focus on specific behavioural acts (e.g. CTS/CTS2; Straus, 1979; Straus et al., 1996). This study has revealed that it is not the aggressive behavioural acts of aggression that are important in determining prevalence but the context and motivations of these. This finding therefore has potential applications for the existing research literature that show prevalence rates to be as high as 91% (Roscoe et al., 1987), higher than prevalence rates of other forms of family violence, such as IPV and child abuse (Walsh & Krienert, 2014). Without taking context into account, these could be inflated, including instances of play fighting between siblings. Play fighting behaviours were described by

participants in this study as being enjoyable and governed by boundaries and rules. This indicates that are acceptable and a normal part of child development (Pellis et al., 2005; Smith & Pellegrini, 2008). Using the context and motivations of the behaviours to gather insight into the true prevalence of sibling aggression could therefore help to identify victims and/or perpetrators who need support and intervention.

The findings from this study can also add to the understanding of why siblings engage in aggression with one another. The inability to deal with negative emotions (such as fear, anger and frustration) with non-aggressive behaviours suggest that emotional management, combined with a lack of prosocial alternatives to deal with conflict in childhood is key to explaining the use aggression among siblings. Individuals who under-regulate their feelings of anger have been shown to be more likely to engage in aggressive behaviours (Roberton, Daffern & Bucks, 2012). Using aggression to deal with negative emotions also has direct links with the IPV

literature (e.g. Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015; Finkel, 2007; McNulty & Hellmuth, 2008). That is, the ability to self-regulate negative emotions is said to help partners resist using aggression when feeling compelled to do so (Finkel, 2007; McNulty & Hellmuth, 2008). Throughout their recollections of sibling aggression, many

participants in this study of the thesis described how their feelings of frustration and anger encouraged them to consciously decide to use aggression with a brother and/or sister. This suggests that they lacked the ability to self-regulate their emotions and turned to aggression to resolve conflict. Such findings stress the importance of the development of good emotional regulation and prosocial skills when dealing with a situation of conflict.

The distinction that participants made between play fighting and sibling

aggression can provide insight into how this form of family violence is defined. As described in Section 1.1.1, there is an overlap between the prescribed behaviours for each of the various definitions of sibling aggression. In their interview accounts, none of the participants distinguished sibling aggression from play fighting by the types of behaviours engaged in. Rather, the focus was placed on the context, intent and motivations of the behavioural acts. This suggests that definitions should not necessarily describe a list of specific behaviours but instead should look at context, intent and motivation. The described motivators of this form of family violence can however, be directly compared to the motivations for physical, psychological and verbal aggression. That is, dealing with negative emotions is said to be a motivator for physical aggression (Rafaelli, 1995), asserting dominance is a motivator for psychological aggression (Whipple & Finton, 1995) and verbal aggression is often a precursor to physically aggressive behavioural acts (Infante et al., 1990). Each of these individual motivators were described by participants as contributing to sibling aggression. This suggests that sibling aggression encompasses all three individual types of aggression (verbal, psychological and physical) and any definition of this form of family violence should take this into account.

5.4.1. Limitations

This study is not without limitations. There are several factors that may have affected the results of the study, which could be improved upon in future research. These will be described in further detail, with suggestions about how these

The retrospective nature of the study could serve as a limitation in that

participants may have difficulty in remembering instances of aggression with their sibling, becoming reliant upon accounts which they have been told from family members, or underreporting their experiences (Hardt & Rutter, 2004). Despite this, the methods used in this study have shown how participants explain their

experiences later in life. It should not be implied that this is how they would have necessarily perceived the acts of aggression at the specific time, but it is how they explain them when in adulthood. This provides a useful contribution to knowledge because it provides insight into the social attitudes and norms that participants hold. Building on this, future research could take place in childhood, with participants keeping a diary in which they describe their experiences of sibling aggression as they happen, reflecting upon their feelings directly after the event.

The research literature has found that males and females interpret instances of aggression differently (Harris & Cook, 1994). This could perhaps explain the over- representation of females within the sample. As the participants in the study were self-identified victims and/or perpetrators of sibling aggression, it could be that female participants considered their experiences of aggression to be more serious than a male participant with the same experiences would. This may have

unintentionally affected the findings, with males being less likely to come forward and speak about their experiences of sibling aggression as they may not see them as being particularly serious enough to speak about, like research which has found males less likely to seek help (e.g. Seager & Wilkins, 2014). To overcome this in the future, more focus could be placed on recruiting male participants for the study.

As the nature of qualitative data analysis is interpretative, different researchers could interpret the data differently. That is, different themes may be drawn out of the

interview data. This has been controlled for throughout this study using Yardley's (2000) criteria for good qualitative design and comparing coding from two different researchers. There is therefore a need for future research to look at experiences of sibling aggression to see similar themes are found.

5.4.2. Implications

The findings from this study have applications for both clinicians and the research literature. By making a distinction between play fighting and sibling aggression, there is scope to identify siblings where intervention is necessary. Not only would this help the specific individuals in need of intervention, but also help society recognise that in some cases, sibling aggression is not a normative part of childhood. In terms of the research literature, the study has identified key aspects important to the experience of sibling aggression. This opens the field to new directions in future research. More specifically, as the current measures used within studies which look at sibling aggression are most often adapted from existing scales of aggression, looking at only specific acts of aggression (e.g. Khan & Cooke, 2013; Relva, Fernandes & Costa, 2013), the findings could be developed into a specific measure of sibling aggression experiences. That is, the items on the scale will have come from themes derived from interviews of victims and/or perpetrators of this form of aggression.

5.4.3. Conclusions

The study was one of the first within the field considering the experiences of sibling aggression from self-identified perpetrators and/or victims. The study found that factors of normalisation, maintaining a status of dominance and the distinction

between play and aggression were important with respect to the experience of sibling aggression. Like Study 1 of this thesis, the findings presented throughout this

chapter highlight the need for measures of sibling aggression to go beyond that of the specific acts used between siblings. By considering the functions and context of the behaviours, a broader picture of the experience of sibling aggression can be attained. Future research could explore these experiences in more depth. Much of the research within the literature places focus upon prevalence rates and predictors of this form of aggression. By placing the focus onto the experience of sibling aggression, this expands and draws together the present research literature.

Chapter 6