Sibling Aggression Among Clinic-Referred Children and Adolescents

Tompsett, Carolyn J.; Mahoney, Annette; Lackey, Jennifer Hayman

doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1138409

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lesser SV acts were conceptually distinguishable as less harmful and widely experienced as a developmentally related consequence of siblinghood whereas more serious acts included acute victimization experiences that were potentially injurious (i.e., beating up and the use, or threat of, weapons). Different risk factors were also found for “severe” SV perpetration (explained by parent-to-child violence and unpredictability) than for “less severe” SV (e.g., contextual factors, such as family environment)—a variance that is reported in other SV studies using samples from normative (Khan & Cooke, 2004), clinically referred (Tompsett, Mahoney, & Lackey, 2016), and forensic (Khan & Cooke, 2008) populations. These findings reinforce a need for empirical validation of this conceptual distinction; that is, to find support for the differentiation between intentional SV that may be rooted in dysfunctional psychopathology and less harmful acts of aggression that might occur as a result of other circumstantial influences (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009; Rosenthal & Doherty, 1984).…”

Section: Rationale For Establishing a Two-factor Model Of Sv Severitymentioning

confidence: 63%

“…contextual factors, such as family environment)-a variance that is reported in other SV studies using samples from normative (Khan & Cooke, 2004), clinically referred (Tompsett, Mahoney, & Lackey, 2016), and forensic (Khan & Cooke, 2008) populations. These findings reinforce a need for empirical validation of this conceptual distinction; that is, to find support for the differentiation between intentional SV that may be rooted in dysfunctional psychopathology and less harmful acts of aggression that might occur as a result of other circumstantial influences (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009;Rosenthal & Doherty, 1984).…”

Section: Rationale For Establishing a Two-factor Model Of Sv Severitymentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Eriksen & Jensen, 2009; Khan & Cooke, 2004) and higher risk samples from clinically referred (cf. Tompsett et al, 2016) and offender populations (cf. Khan & Cooke, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sibling violence: Validating a two-factor model of severity in nonoffender populations.

Khan

2017

Psychology of Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Despite a recent surge of academic and clinical interest in sibling violence (SV), valid measures of severity have not been psychometrically established using nonoffender populations. This study examined the factor structure of intentional SV severity in a nonforensic sample considered to be not at "high risk" for violence using the only existing empirically driven model of severe SV committed with intent (Khan & Cooke, 2013). The prior model was established in a high risk for violence, young offender sample (N ϭ 111; mean age ϭ 14.53) and revealed 2 underlying factors: "SV with weapon use" and "SV without weapon use." Method: This study examined data from an older, mixed-community, and student sample (N ϭ 899; M ϭ 22.53) to test the factor structure and reliability of the existing severity model. Results: Participants reported a wide range of violent acts against their sibling(s) with the aim of injuring them, including weapon use. Using exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses, the prior 2-factor model was empirically supported using this noncorrectional population. The new model comprised Factor 1 (potentially lethal SV) and Factor 2 (nonlife threatening SV). Conclusion: The generalizability of the original 2-factor model, established using an offender sample, was demonstrated in this nonoffender sample designated not at high risk for violence.

show abstract

Section: Rationale For Establishing a Two-factor Model Of Sv Severitymentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Rationale For Establishing a Two-factor Model Of Sv Severitymentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sibling violence: Validating a two-factor model of severity in nonoffender populations.

Khan

2017

Psychology of Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an analysis of the prevalence rates for sibling bullying, Wolke, Tippett, and Dantchev (2015) found "about 15% to 50% for victimization by siblings, and 10% to 40% for perpetrating sibling bullying" (p. 920). In a study examining sibling aggression in a clinic-referred sample of youth, mothers indicated that 93% of youth had perpetrated aggression toward a sibling in the past year, with 82% of youth reporting they had engaged in sibling aggression (Tompsett, Mahoney, & Lackey, 2018). The aforementioned studies highlight the extent of physical and emotional violence between siblings, underscoring the chronicity with which this form of family violence can occur.…”

Section: Background Information On Physical and Emotional Sibling Viomentioning

confidence: 99%

Sibling Violence

Perkins

Grossman

2020

ASW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social work has played an integral role in the conceptualization and implementation of policy aimed at prevention and intervention of various forms of family violence. Seminal federal policies to address child abuse and neglect (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), elder abuse (Elder Justice and Older Americans Acts), and intimate partner violence (Violence Against Women and Family Violence Prevention and Services Acts) all focus on specific types of violence in the family. To date, however, there are no federal policies specifically addressing physical and/or emotional sibling violence (Perkins, Coles, & O’Connor, 2017; Perkins & O’Connor, 2016). This article examines the exclusion of policy addressing physical and emotional sibling violence considering other family violence policies. Along with prevalence, consequences, and associative factors connected to sibling violence, definitional issues that impede the creation of policy to address this form of family violence are highlighted. Children as a marginalized population, deserving the attention of social workers through policy advocacy will be discussed as well as psychoeducation and interprofessional collaboration that may facilitate the creation of policies aimed at addressing this form of family violence.

show abstract

“…Hence, although sibling aggression is likely to be the most prevalent form of family violence (e.g., Eriksen & Jensen, 2006 , 2009 ; Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2006 ; Straus & Gelles, 1986 ), a substantial proportion of those experiencing it being injured ( Khan & Cooke, 2013 ; Reese-Weber, 2008 ), and a range of weapons being used to threaten or attack siblings, including knives, broken glass, and guns ( Kiselica & Morrill-Richards, 2007 ), this behavior has received much less research attention than other forms of familial aggression ( DeKeseredy & Ellis, 1997 ; Wiehe, 1997 ). This is surprising given that weapon use against siblings has been reported not only in clinical and forensic populations who might be deemed at higher risk for violence ( Kuay et al, 2016 ; Tompsett, Mahoney, & Lackey, 2018 ) but also in lower-risk community and student populations ( Khan, 2017 ) and extreme sibling aggression also occurs ( Salmon & Hehman, 2014 ).…”

Section: Conflict and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic relatedness, emotional closeness and physical aggression: A comparison of full and half sibling experiences

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies investigated whether perceived closeness of siblings, and aggression between siblings, were associated with genetic relatedness. In following Hamilton’s rule, we predicted that as the coefficient of relatedness between siblings increased, emotional closeness would also increase while conflict would decrease. Contrary to the predictions, we found no effect of genetic relatedness in Study 1 when we compared participants’ (n = 240) ratings of emotional closeness; participants also reported significantly higher levels of conflict with full siblings than with half siblings. In Study 2, participants (n = 214) also reported a higher frequency of physical aggression with full siblings than with half siblings. These findings were contrary to the prediction from Hamilton’s rule. We discuss them in relation to parental investment in biological and non-biological offspring.

show abstract

Sibling Aggression Among Clinic-Referred Children and Adolescents

Cited by 18 publications

References 39 publications

Sibling violence: Validating a two-factor model of severity in nonoffender populations.

Sibling violence: Validating a two-factor model of severity in nonoffender populations.

Sibling Violence

Genetic relatedness, emotional closeness and physical aggression: A comparison of full and half sibling experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About