Theme 2: The normalisation of sibling aggression

When discussing their experiences of sibling aggression, the interview data suggested two processes that contributed to the normalisation of their aggressive behaviours by participants. This was done through (1) endorsing gender role stereotypes and (2) the way that parents intervened. These two factors provided the sub themes for what would be the normalisation of sibling aggression. These will be discussed in turn.

Gender role stereotypes

Throughout the interviews, many of the participants made reference to gender role stereotypes. Many female participants with older male siblings held the belief that boys enjoyed fighting so they became involved in such behaviours.

“I think cos he was a boy that’s like, he liked fighting as it was and then I had an argument, give him a reason to fight” (Leah).

Not only does this infer blame onto the male sibling, but it also suggests a degree of normality around aggression between siblings. That is, if they had a brother, their aggressive behaviours were as a result of having a male sibling. Two participants went a step further than this saying that aggression was the only way that they could communicate with their brothers.

“…so with my brother that to me that was the only way of communicating with him, or well he’ll shut up if I punch him in the face” (Carrie)

This implied that their male siblings were unable or unwilling to

communicate in other ways, providing further justification for the use of aggressive behaviours. If a male was perceived to have no other skills to overcome a

disagreement or situation of conflict, this may be the behaviour that they default to, rather than trying to use different methods of resolution. This was often a reason stated by female participants engaging in aggression with their male sibling. A small number of participants also mentioned how they had to learn how to defend

themselves as a result of having a brother. This justified their aggressive behaviours towards a male sibling as they were acting in self-defence. Two female participants also described themselves as a 'tomboy'.

“I think it’s to do with maybe rough and tumble, boys wanting to do that and then I was quite a tomboy so I used to, it was only me and Andrew that would play fight

though.” (Carrie)

By describing themselves in this way, the implication is that these behaviours are characteristic of boys and their [the girls’] engagement in play fighting was

understood by their label of being a 'tomboy'. This shows that conceptualising sibling aggression as gendered, with males having a propensity for aggression, serves to normalise the behaviours that siblings use toward one another, thus making them acceptable.

Parental Involvement

Participants often looked to their parents to tell them whether aggression with their sibling was acceptable and normal. More specifically, for eleven of the

participants, parents intervened in the aggression when they became aware that their children were being using physically aggressive behaviours with each other. This therefore ended many of these 'fights' that the siblings became involved in.

“I've always been told off for doing that with my brother.” (Jack)

This seems to reflect the literature on parental involvement in sibling aggression well (e.g. Button & Gealt, 2010). By telling children off for their aggression,

participants knew that the behaviours were not acceptable for the family

environment. However, for some participants, intervention alone was not enough to stop the aggression and they sometimes fought secretly.

“…they seem to be unaware a lot of the time so I don’t know, maybe we were quite erm secretive about it [laughs]. Secret scrap [laughs].” (Amy)

That way, they could resolve their conflict without fear of punishment. This suggested that although these children knew the behaviours were wrong, they saw them as an effective method of conflict resolution. This implied that although parents tried to stop aggression between their children, they were not always successful.

When intervention by parents was successful, participants reported feelings of relief. Firstly, relief was found in relation to fear. That is, participants felt scared and the intervention stopped or reduced such feelings. Through the parental intervention, the behaviours ceased and there was a reduction in fear as they were no longer in a situation of conflict. Secondly, relief was found in relation to the escalation of the

behaviours. That is, participants felt that they needed the intervention to stop the seriousness of the behaviours increasing.

“…they used to get really out of control really quickly so it was probably good if one of them was there because I dread to think what I’d have done to her.” (Carrie)

Not only does this illustrate the importance of parental involvement, but it also illustrates how important it is in preventing the escalation of aggression between siblings. By having such interventions, participants felt relieved from either the escalation of the aggressive behaviours or the fear that they were experiencing towards their sibling.

Contrastingly, for nine of the participants, no intervention was provided from a parent. Although some participants knew that their parents disproved of their aggressive behaviours, they noted that their parents did not try and stop them from being physically aggressive with each other.

“…they'd just say stuff like 'oh brother and sisterly love' stuff like that. This is what brothers and sisters do, I did it with mine.” (Mia)

This contributed to the normalisation of such behaviours, by implying an acceptance of siblings being aggressive with one another to resolve a disagreement. This is consistent with evidence that no intervention reflects permission for the behaviours within the family (Kramer et al., 1999).