The role of dominance in sibling relationships: differences in interactive cooperative and competitive behavior

Abstract

Siblings strongly influence each other in their social development and are a major source of support and conflict. Yet, studies are mostly observational, and little is known about how adult sibling relationships influence social behavior. Previous tasks exploring dynamically adjusting social interactions have limitations in the level of interactivity and naturalism of the interaction. To address these limitations, we created a cooperative tetris puzzle-solving task and an interactive version of the chicken game task. We validated these two tasks to study cooperative and competitive behavior in real-time interactions (N = 56). Based on a dominance questionnaire (DoPL), sibling pairs were clustered into pairs that were both low in dominance (n = 7), both high in dominance (n = 8), or one low and one high in dominance (n = 13). Consistent with our hypothesis, there were significantly more mutual defections, less use of turn-taking strategies, and a non-significant trend for reduced success in solving tetris puzzles together among high dominance pairs compared to both other pair types. High dominant pairs also had higher Machiavellian and hypercompetitiveness traits and more apathetic sibling relationships. Both tasks constitute powerful and reliable tools to study personality and relationship influences on real and natural social interactions by demonstrating the different cooperative and competitive dynamics between siblings.

A quasi-experimental study in sibling dyads: differential provocation-aggression patterns in the interactive taylor aggression paradigm

“…Interestingly, in the same sample using other interactive tasks, we observed that sibling pairs exhibited high dominance traits displayed more competitive behavior, and a relatively apathetic sibling relationship. Siblings with low dominance traits showed a more affectionate and reciprocal relationship and cooperative turn-taking strategies during an interactive version of the Chicken Game task ( Hernandez-Pena et al, 2023 ). In the iTAP, sibling dominance and motivation to win were associated with a mutual aggression strategy.…”

“…The sample took part in a broader study including a total of three tasks followed by a set of self-report instruments, taking 2.5 h in total. Participants also played two other interactive tasks, including a Tetris Cooperative Task and an interactive version of the Chicken Game task (see Hernandez-Pena et al, 2023 for details). Before each task participants received instructions through a pre-recorded presentation to ensure consistency in explanation.…”

“…Independent of age order, siblings with high-dominance traits displayed more competitive behavior and a relatively apathetic sibling relationship during an interactive version of the Chicken Game task. Siblings with low-dominance traits showed a more affectionate and reciprocal relationship and cooperative turn-taking strategies ( Hernandez-Pena et al, 2023 ).…”

“…We anticipate that brothers display higher levels of aggression, whereas sisters may be more responsive to provocation ( Bettencourt and Miller, 1996 ). Additionally, we expect a positive correlation between mean individual aggression and psychometric constructs ( Blair, 2018 ; Weidler et al, 2019 ; Meidenbauer et al, 2023 ) as well as measures of attenuated sibling relationship quality ( Hernandez-Pena et al, 2023 ).…”