Childhood Familial Victimization: An Exploration of Gender and Sexual Identity Using the Scale of Negative Family Interactions

Abstract

Familial violence poses a serious public health concern and has therefore received a considerable amount of attention from academics and practitioners alike. Research within this field has found that parent-to-parent and parent-to-child violence often occur simultaneously and are especially prevalent within households that suffer from social and environmental stressors. Sibling violence and its relationship to these other forms of familial violence has received considerably less attention, largely related to the widely held belief that sibling violence is natural, especially for boys. Using the Scale of Negative Family Interactions (SNFI), parent-to-child and sibling-to-sibling violence is investigated. Specifically, the relationship between participants’ gender and sexual identities and their reports of familial violence are explored to better understand participants’ gendered and sexed experiences. Data suggest that gender and sexual minorities may have a unique experience of familial violence, although further research is needed in this area.

Keywords

family violence gender sexual identity siblings

In 2005, Simonelli, Mullis, and Rohde developed the Scale of Negative Family Interactions (SNFI) to measure levels of familial violence, which they defined as emotional, physical, and sexual aggression perpetrated by parents and siblings. As they noted, the extant research in childhood victimization focused on parental violence and sibling violence separately. Few, if any, studies measured parental and sibling violence together, allowing for comparisons between the two. These comparisons seem particularly relevant for childhood victimization studies due to the notion proposed by social learning theorists that deviant behaviors, such as violence and aggression, can be learned within the family—also referred to as the “intergenerational transmission of violent behaviors” (Akers, 1973; Bandura, 1973). Eriksen and Jensen’s (2006) study on family violence further supports this theory; they suggest that parental violence predicts sibling violence. This study uses the SNFI to explore childhood victimization, specific to familial physical violence—an act of physical aggression perpetrated by parents and siblings toward participants in this study—and familial characteristics (i.e., family size and years of cohabitation) that might predict this violence. It utilized the responses from 91 anonymous online survey participants to explore whether their gender and/or sexual identities related to the types and rates of physical violence they experienced at the hands of their family members.

Familial Victimization and Gender Identity

Previous studies in childhood familial victimization that have focused on the relationship between the survivor’s gender and the types of violence experienced in childhood have largely focused on one of two topics: gendered differences in types of violence experienced (i.e., emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual) and gendered differences in responses to victimization. Unfortunately, those studies which have explored gender in relation to the types of family violence experienced have largely failed to differentiate between parental and sibling violence, typically labeling victimization as “by a family member” (Asscher, Van der Put, & Stams, 2015). They have also often relied upon broad categorizations of physical violence from local and national surveys which may not allow for differentiation between the various forms of physical violence (Greenfield & Marks, 2010; Scher, Forde, McQuaid, & Stein, 2004). These studies, though, have determined that childhood victimization within the family tends to be physical (whether abusive or neglectful), with approximately equal parental responsibility for the violence (May-Chahal, 2006) and with higher victimization rates for males than females, but more diversity in victimization type for females (Scher et al., 2004). Still, these studies have combined physically violent acts, without differentiating between the various forms.

The differentiation between physically violent acts is important, given that certain aggressive acts may be gendered, especially when performed as a child (May-Chahal, 2006). For instance, Fried and Sosland (2011) explained that girls are more likely to pull hair, scratch, and pinch while boys are more likely to punch, choke, and throw objects. Sibling violence research explicitly suggests that sibling physical aggression is heavily gendered, such that boys perpetrate violence at higher rates (Eriksen & Jensen, 2006; Hardy, 2001; Hoffman, Kiecolt, & Edwards, 2005; Krienert & Walsh, 2011), and girls suffer violence at higher rates (Button & Gealt, 2010). D’Augelli, Grossman, and Starks (2006) found that boys are generally victimized by brothers, and girls are victimized by both brothers and sisters, which might help explain higher victimization rates for girls. Some studies, though, indicate that girls and boys experience violence perpetration and victimization at similar rates (Hardy, 2001; Kettrey & Emery, 2006). Unfortunately, few of these studies have differentiated between the types of physical violence that boys and girls experience in childhood.

Eriksen and Jensen’s (2008) study on sibling violence severity is one of the most comprehensive studies in terms of differentiating between the various types of physical violence occurring among siblings, despite having recategorized the violence by perceived severity. They found that girls and boys committed similar rates of “less severe” violence (i.e., threatening to hit or throw something, throwing something, pushing/grabbing/spanking, kicking/biting/hitting with a fist/object), and boys committed higher rates of “more severe” violence (i.e., beating up, threatening to use a weapon, using a weapon) against their siblings than girls. They also explained that parent–sibling relationships involving violence would impact sibling–sibling violence (also see Hoffman & Edwards, 2004). Specifically, “the more children experience physical violence from parents, the more they engage in less severe acts of violence against each other” (Hoffman & Edwards, 2004, p. 200). They noted that this was particularly the case for children who experienced physical punishment from fathers, but not from mothers. For more severe acts of violence, though, Eriksen and Jenson found that the amount of parental violence significantly increased the amount of severe sibling violence, except when it involved physical punishment from fathers, which decreased severe sibling violence. This study highlights the need for further research in family victimization, especially as it relates to the various, uncategorized types of physical aggression that one might experience due to gender identity and parental influence. Also, missing from their study is an analysis of whether sexual identity might influence familial victimization.

Familial Victimization and Sexual Identity

Research in familial victimization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) individuals, although limited, has consistently found that they are at higher risks for physical violence than heterosexuals, both inside and outside the home (Alvy, Hughes, Kristjanson, & Wilsnack, 2013; Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005; Corliss, Cochran, & Mays, 2002; Stoddard, Dibble, & Fineman, 2009). According to Balsam et al. (2005), LGBTQ individuals “may be singled out by their parents for maltreatment” (p. 483) because they do not conform to their gender expectations. Corliss et al. (2002) found that gay and bisexual men, when compared with heterosexual men, reported higher rates of any physical violence from mothers and fathers and “major physical violence” (i.e., kicking/biting/hitting with a fist/object, beating up, choking, burning/scalding) from fathers. They also found that lesbian and bisexual women, when compared with heterosexual women, reported higher rates of major physical violence from mothers and fathers, although possibly less from fathers (see D’Augelli, 2003). Like Eriksen and Jensen (2008), Corliss et al. (2002) recategorized the violence into severity types, preventing the possibility of understanding whether certain types of physical violence are more prevalent due to what D’Augelli et al. (2006) labeled “gender atypicality.”

In their study, D’Augelli, Grossman, and Starks found that gender expectations are often tied to sexual identity, such that parents want their children to both identify and present as heterosexual and masculine as men, or feminine as women. When they fail to present as such, parents often react in negative ways. D’Augelli, Grossman, and Starks asked their LGBTQ youth sample about the physical violence they experienced, and specifically what their parents’ responses were to their gender atypicality. The male participants indicated that they perceived a more negative response from their parents to their gender atypical behaviors than female participants. As noted by D’Augelli, Grossman, and Starks (2006), parental negative reactions “generally preceded victimization” (p. 1479; also see D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998). This is one reason LGBTQ youth often experience family as a negative factor in their well-being (Higa et al., 2012; Hunter, 1992). Much less has been understood about sibling violence for LGBTQ individuals, except that brothers tend to be the perpetrators and LGBTQ women report more severe verbal than physical violence compared with heterosexual women (Martinez & McDonald, 2016).

The extant research cited here explores either parent-to-child or sibling-to-sibling, with few comparing these forms of family violence. Those who have studied parental and sibling violence have suggested that they are intimately linked (Eriksen & Jensen, 2008; Hoffman & Edwards, 2004; Straus, 1990; Wiehe, 1997), with parental violence potentially predicting sibling violence. This is one reason Simonelli, Mullis, and Rohde developed the SNFI—to test this relationship—and why the SNFI was adopted for this study. Several studies in family violence also have found strong relationships between parent and sibling gender and the frequency and severity of violence experienced. As mentioned previously, however, none of these studies have examined the relationships between gender and sexuality identity and the specific types of physical violence experienced by the hands of both parents and siblings. In this study, the SNFI was used to compare parental and sibling violence experiences for 91 heterosexual and LGBTQ women and men. As an exploratory study, the hope was to better understand physical violence victimization within the family as it relates to gender and sexual identities.

Method

Institutional review boards (IRBs) at an urban university in the western region of the United States and a rural university in the southeastern region of the United States approved this exploratory study. One investigator from each university served as the lead for survey recruitment and research in their respective regions of the United States, although both worked collaboratively to ensure their study materials and procedures matched. Research recruitment began after approval from both IRBs in the summer of 2015 and ended 1 year later. All participants volunteered for this study.

Materials

The anonymous online survey devised for this study had three short sections involving (a) nine demographic questions, (b) Physical Violence Victimization and Perpetration subscales from the SNFI (Simonelli, Mullis, & Rohde, 2005), and (c) a short-answer section on participant experiences with sibling physical violence specifically. The SNFI measures self-reported experiences of emotional, physical, and sexual aggression by parents and siblings in childhood and adolescence. As such, this scale is retrospective in nature, but is meant to allow for specific controls (i.e., parental violence) when examining sibling violence. In their tests of this scale, Simonelli, Mullis, and Rohde reported an “acceptable level of test-retest reliability” and a “high level of internal consistency” (p. 796).

The subscale chosen for this study measures physical violence victimization by parents (mothers and fathers) and siblings (older and younger sisters and brothers). Parents refer to “all biological, adoptive, or stepmothers and/or stepfathers, or any women or men who lived with [the participant’s] family and took on the role of mother or father (other than sisters and brothers).” Siblings refer to “all biological, adoptive, foster, half, or stepsiblings, or any child and/or adolescent who lived with [the participant’s] family.” Within the scale, participants were instructed to indicate how often (1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = 3 to 6 times, 4 = 7 or more times) the members in their family of origin engaged in a list of 15 violent behaviors. Participants were further instructed to provide answers to the scale that “reflect the greatest amount any mother, father, sister, or brother engaged in the behavior” if they perhaps had more than one parent or sibling in the same category (i.e., two mothers).

The 15 violent behaviors listed in the scale range from “spanked you” to “threw a hard object at you” to “threatened you with, or used, a knife, gun, or sharp object.” These behaviors also included pushing/shoving/pulling, shaking, hitting/punching, slapping, kicking, scratching/pinching, pulling hair, biting, beating, and smothering/choking. Importantly, Simonelli et al. (2005) clarified that the items within the scale may not reflect abusive behaviors; yet, these behaviors are negative and aggressive and therefore violent. Participants could also reflect on their sibling victimization experiences more in-depth in the third section of the survey where the following question was asked: “Is there anything you would like the researchers to know about your experiences with sibling violence?” Few participants responded to this portion of the survey, so these data were excluded from analyses.

Procedure

Purposive sampling was used to recruit adult (18 years old and older) participants for this study. Any student within western and southeastern United States could volunteer to participate in the study if they (a) had a sibling and (b) experienced some form of violence that they felt was “overly aggressive,” “undeserved,” and/or “unfair.” Recruitment flyers distributed throughout two campus communities provided participants with a survey link through SurveyMonkey.com. At the beginning of the survey, participants were required to read the consent form that provided the research description and information on the risks, discomforts, benefits of participation, and confidentiality. If participants understood their rights as a research subject, they could agree to participate in the study. All individuals who volunteered to participate in the survey were given a resource list at the end of the survey. This list included national and local resource information (i.e., hotlines, websites, and local addresses) for those feeling distressed and those wanting more information about how to address interpersonal violence and abuse. Beyond the general sample demographics, no identifying information was collected from survey participants.

The results presented below were split into “victimization” and “prediction” sections to differentiate between violence victimization scores reported by participants in this study and tests of predictor variables that contribute to family violence scores. As such, independent-sample t tests and one-way ANOVA tests are presented to differentiate between physical violence victimization scores (the dependent variables) by participants’ gender (0 = man, 1 = woman) and sexual identities (0 = heterosexual, 1 = lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual/queer, asexual [LGBPQ] as a binary variable, and 1 = heterosexual, 2 = lesbian/gay, 3 = bisexual, 4 = pansexual/queer, 5 = asexual as a nonbinary variable). Also, regression and multivariate regression analyses are presented to reflect the predictors of family violence, generally, and sibling violence, more specifically.

Results

Ninety-one U.S. adult residents, 76 women and 15 men, volunteered for this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 years old, although the average age for women (M = 21.78, SD = 4.71) and men (M = 22.27, SD = 3.08) was in their early 20s. A majority self-identified as White/Caucasian (55 women, 12 men), while fewer identified as African American (11 women, two men), Latina/o and Hispanic (five women, one man), Asian American and Pacific Islander (three women), and Bi- or Multi-racial (two women). Women participants primarily identified as heterosexual (n = 51) and bisexual (n = 16), while men participants primarily identified as heterosexual (n = 12). Four women and two men identified as lesbian and gay, respectively, while three women identified as pansexual or queer and two women identified as asexual. A smaller percentage of women (34.2%) than men (53.3%) had achieved a college degree.

Although participants completed the survey from a range of U.S. locations, most (n = 60) did so from the Southeastern region and fewer (n = 17) from the Western region. Only eight completed the survey from the Northeast, three from the Midwest, and two from the Southwest regions; one declined to identify. They mostly grew up in suburban (n = 38) and rural (n = 32) communities, although some grew up in urban communities (n = 19). One participant grew up in various communities, traveling with a military family, and another declined to identify. Many grew up in a dyad (n = 31) or triad (n = 27) with their full-, step-, and half-siblings; seven grew up with three siblings, 11 with four siblings, and 15 with five or more siblings. Participants identified as the youngest (n = 27), oldest (n = 33), and “middle child” (n = 30) at similar rates, with one identifying as being the same age as their sibling. The average length of sibling cohabitation, in years, for women (M = 16.49, SD = 4.66) and men (M = 17.60, SD = 2.32) was relatively similar; 11 participants declined to identify.

Family Violence Victimization

Family violence victimization scores were calculated by first recoding the Physical Violence subscale of the SNFI, such that never = 0, once or twice = 1, 3 to 6 times = 2, and 7 or more times = 3. Participants’ responses for the family, parents, and siblings were then summed (see Table 1). If participants indicated they never experienced any of the 15 types of physical violence in the subscale from parents and/or siblings, they received a score of 0. Participants’ family violence victimization scores ranged from 0 to 82 (M = 22, SD = 18.31) out of 270 possible points, indicating that participants experienced relatively low levels of familial physical violence overall. Independent-sample t tests comparing family violence victimization scores between women (M = 21.93, SD = 18.77) and men (M = 22.33, SD = 16.38) revealed no statistically significant difference. However, there was a statistically significant effect, t(89) = −2.03, p < .05, for sexual identity (binary), with heterosexuals (M = 19.44, SD = 16.08) scoring lower than LGBPQ (M = 27.75, SD = 21.29), for family physical violence victimization.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics for Family Physical Violence Victimization Scores (N = 91).

	M	SD	Maximum
Family	22.00	18.31	82
Parents	8.35	8.33	39
Spanked you	3.07	2.00	6
Pushed, shoved, or pulled you	1.13	1.49	6
Shook you	0.65	1.39	6
Threw a hard object at you	0.41	0.84	3
Hit you with an object	0.77	1.27	6
Hit with a fist and/or punched you	0.21	0.66	3
Slapped you	0.80	1.22	6
Kicked you	0.09	0.32	2
Scratched and/or pinched you	0.44	0.88	4
Pulled your hair	0.36	0.90	5
Bit you	0.01	0.10	1
Beat up and/or hit you hard	0.16	0.60	3
Threw you	0.15	0.58	3
Tried to smother or tried to choke you	0.07	0.36	3
Threatened/used knife, gun, or sharp object	0.03	0.18	1
Siblings	13.65	12.95	49
Spanked you	0.21	0.84	6
Pushed, shoved, or pulled you	2.26	1.97	9
Shook you	0.62	1.16	6
Threw a hard object at you	1.32	1.42	5
Hit you with an object	1.23	1.46	6
Hit with a fist and/or punched you	1.56	1.91	8
Slapped you	1.19	1.64	6
Kicked you	0.95	1.34	6
Scratched and/or pinched you	1.55	1.54	6
Pulled your hair	1.07	1.24	4
Bit you	0.67	0.96	4
Beat up and/or hit you hard	0.49	1.10	5
Threw you	0.13	0.45	3
Tried to smother or tried to choke you	0.23	0.62	3
Threatened/used knife, gun, or sharp object	0.18	0.53	3

Parental Violence Victimization

Parental violence victimization scores were calculated by summing violence scores for mothers and fathers based on participants’ responses to the 15-item physical violence scale. These scores ranged from 0 to 39 (M = 8.35, SD = 8.33) out of 90 possible points. Summary statistics revealed that certain physically violent behaviors perpetrated by parents were less common, such as kicking, biting, and threatening and/or using a knife, gun, or sharp object (see Table 1). Independent-sample t tests comparing parental, mother, and father physical violence victimization by gender revealed no statistically significant differences between women and men. There was, though, a significant effect for sexual identity, t(89) = −3.84, p < .001, with LGBPQ participants reporting higher parental physical violence victimization scores than heterosexual participants. This effect was especially significant for physical violence victimization by mothers, t(89) = −3.53, p < .001, and just barely so by fathers, t(89) = −2.01, p < .05.

Independent-sample t tests comparing LGBPQ and heterosexual participants on specific forms of parental violence (perpetrated by mothers and fathers) revealed that LGBPQ participants reported significantly higher physical violence victimization by mothers and fathers than heterosexuals, especially with regard to being pushed/shoved/pulled, being shook, having hard objects thrown at them, being hit with a fist/punched, being kicked, and being thrown (see Table 2). These tests also showed that LGBPQ participants reported significantly higher mean victimization scores with regard to being scratched/pinched, having their hair pulled, and being threatened with or having a knife, gun, or sharp object used against them by their mothers when compared with heterosexual participants. Correcting for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .003 per test (.05/15) changed these results slightly, eliminating significance for most violence perpetrated by fathers, except fathers having thrown the participants, and some violence perpetrated by mothers, except mothers having pushed/shoved/pulled, thrown an object at the participant, hit/punched, kicked, and pulled the participant’s hair. Separate one-way ANOVA tests for differences in means by sexual identity (nonbinary) showed statistically significant differences in family violence victimization scores for pansexual and/or queer identified individuals, especially for parental violence victimization which was 2.7 times as high as the mean score for heterosexuals, and 1.7 to 1.2 times as high as the mean score for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and asexual participants, F(4, 86) = 3.86, p < .01.

Table 2.

Independent-Sample t Test Comparing LGBPQ and Heterosexuals on Parental Violence.

	Heterosexual			LGBPQ			t
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t
Spanked you
Mother	61	1.67	1.17	28	1.68	1.19	−0.02
Father	62	1.56	1.17	22	1.50	1.22	0.22
Pushed, shoved, or pulled you
Mother	58	0.41	0.75	27	1.19	1.21	−3.60***
Father	57	0.44	0.73	21	1.05	1.16	−2.76**
Shook you
Mother	57	0.23	0.60	28	0.75	1.11	−2.82**
Father	57	0.16	0.53	23	0.70	1.15	−2.88**
Threw a hard object at you
Mother	56	0.13	0.38	28	0.61	0.99	−3.20**
Father	56	0.05	0.30	23	0.43	0.84	−2.98**
Hit you with an object
Mother	56	0.34	0.72	28	0.68	1.02	−1.76
Father	56	0.32	0.09	23	0.61	0.89	−1.58
Hit with a fist and/or punched you
Mother	56	0.00	0.00	28	0.39	0.92	−3.23**
Father	55	0.04	0.27	23	0.26	0.69	−2.08*
Slapped you
Mother	58	0.47	0.73	28	0.68	0.94	−1.15
Father	57	0.25	0.61	23	0.57	1.04	−1.72
Kicked you
Mother	57	0.00	0.00	28	0.18	0.39	−3.48***
Father	57	0.00	0.00	23	0.13	0.46	−2.17*
Scratched and/or pinched you
Mother	56	0.23	0.50	28	0.61	1.10	−2.15*
Father	56	0.09	0.44	23	0.22	0.09	−1.19
Pulled your hair
Mother	56	0.09	0.44	28	0.57	1.00	−3.08**
Father	56	0.09	0.39	23	0.30	0.56	−1.94
Bit you
Mother	56	0.00	0.00	28	0.00	0.00	—
Father	56	0.02	0.13	23	0.00	0.00	0.64
Beat up and/or hit you hard
Mother	55	0.05	0.30	28	0.25	0.80	−1.61
Father	54	0.02	0.14	23	0.17	0.65	−1.69
Threw you
Mother	57	0.00	0.00	28	0.21	0.79	−2.07*
Father	57	0.02	0.13	22	0.32	0.72	−3.07**
Tried to smother or tried to choke you
Mother	56	0.00	0.00	28	0.11	0.57	−1.42
Father	56	0.02	0.13	22	0.09	0.29	−1.51
Threatened/used knife, gun, or sharp object
Mother	55	0.00	0.00	28	0.07	0.15	−2.03*
Father	55	0.00	0.00	22	0.05	0.11	−1.59

Note. LGBPQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual/queer.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Sibling Violence Victimization

Sibling violence victimization scores were calculated by summing violence scores for older siblings and younger siblings. Sibling violence scores ranged from 0 to 49 (M = 13.65, SD = 12.95) out of 180 possible points. Some of the least commonly reported forms of violence perpetrated by siblings were being thrown, being smothered or choked, and having a sibling threaten with or use a knife, gun, or sharp object against the participant (see Table 1). Overall, participants scored younger siblings (M = 7.48, SD = 10.22) higher than older siblings (M = 6.16, SD = 9.48) for physical violence, with younger siblings having a maximum score of 43 and older siblings having a maximum score of 37. Independent-sample t tests comparing sibling physical violence victimization by gender revealed several statistically significant relationships, but only for victimization by older siblings (see Table 3). Particularly, the men in this study reported higher means scores of being spanked, hit with a fist and/or punched, beat up, and smothered/choked by an older brother, and pushed/shoved/pulled by an older sister. There was no statistically significant effect for sexual identity when measuring sibling violence victimization scores, generally, and older and younger sibling violence victimization scores, more specifically.

Table 3.

Independent-Sample t Test Comparing Women and Men on Older Sibling Violence.

	Men			Women			t
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t
Spanked you
Older sister	6	0.50	1.22	24	0.13	0.34	1.37
Older brother	5	0.60	1.34	34	0.06	0.24	2.28*
Pushed, shoved, or pulled you
Older sister	6	2.33	1.21	26	1.15	1.22	2.13*
Older brother	5	2.00	1.41	36	1.25	1.27	1.22
Shook you
Older sister	6	0.50	1.22	25	0.44	0.82	0.15
Older brother	5	1.00	1.41	34	0.38	0.78	1.48
Threw a hard object at you
Older sister	6	1.17	0.98	25	0.75	0.99	0.92
Older brother	5	1.20	1.30	36	0.64	0.93	1.21
Hit you with an object
Older sister	6	0.83	0.75	24	0.67	0.92	0.41
Older brother	5	1.00	1.41	35	0.43	0.88	1.25
Hit with a fist and/or punched you
Older sister	6	0.83	1.17	24	1.17	1.40	−0.54
Older brother	5	2.00	1.22	35	0.71	1.15	2.32*
Slapped you
Older sister	6	1.17	1.17	25	0.80	1.04	0.76
Older brother	5	1.20	1.30	36	0.53	0.84	1.56
Kicked you
Older sister	6	0.83	0.75	26	0.35	0.75	1.44
Older brother	5	1.00	1.41	37	0.41	0.86	1.34
Scratched and/or pinched you
Older sister	6	1.00	0.89	25	1.00	1.08	0.00
Older brother	5	0.40	0.89	37	0.70	1.05	−0.61
Pulled your hair
Older sister	6	0.17	0.41	25	0.68	0.95	−1.29
Older brother	5	0.40	0.89	37	0.41	0.83	−0.01
Bit you
Older sister	6	0.00	0.00	26	0.35	0.63	−1.33
Older brother	5	0.20	0.45	37	0.27	0.69	−0.22
Beat up and/or hit you hard
Older sister	6	0.50	0.84	25	0.40	0.87	0.26
Older brother	5	1.00	1.41	34	0.21	0.64	2.17*
Threw you
Older sister	6	0.00	0.00	25	0.04	0.20	−0.48
Older brother	5	0.20	0.45	36	0.14	0.54	0.24
Tried to smother or tried to choke you
Older sister	6	0.00	0.00	24	0.13	0.45	−0.67
Older brother	5	1.00	1.22	35	0.20	0.63	2.33*
Threatened/used knife, gun, or sharp object
Older sister	5	0.20	0.45	24	0.21	0.66	−0.03
Older brother	5	0.00	0.00	35	0.09	0.28	−0.67

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Independent-sample t tests comparing LGBPQ and heterosexual participants on specific forms of sibling violence (perpetrated by older and younger brothers and sisters) revealed that LGBPQ participants reported significantly higher physical violence victimization by brothers and sisters than heterosexual participants, although this was only the case for younger siblings (see Table 4). Particularly, the LGBPQ participants reported higher mean scores than heterosexuals for being spanked and having hard objects thrown at them by younger brothers, and being smothered/choked by younger sisters. Separate one-way ANOVA tests for differences in means by sexual identity (nonbinary) showed statistically significant differences in sibling violence victimization scores for lesbian and gay identified individuals, especially for older sister violence victimization which was 106.2 times as high as the mean score for bisexual participants, and 4.7 to 3.5 times as high as the mean score for heterosexual, pansexual/queer, and asexual participants, F(4, 86) = 3.64, p < .01.

Table 4.

Independent-Sample t Test Comparing LGBPQ and Heterosexuals on Sibling Violence.

	Heterosexual			LGBPQ			t
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t
Spanked you
Younger sister	25	0.04	0.20	9	0.00	0.00	0.59
Younger brother	20	0.00	0.00	14	0.50	1.09	−2.06*
Pushed, shoved, or pulled you
Younger sister	26	1.38	1.10	9	1.44	1.13	−0.14
Younger brother	22	1.50	1.26	14	1.79	1.19	−0.68
Shook you
Younger sister	26	0.27	0.72	9	0.56	1.01	−0.92
Younger brother	20	0.30	0.66	15	0.40	0.83	−0.40
Threw a hard object at you
Younger sister	25	0.80	0.87	9	1.11	1.27	−0.81
Younger brother	20	0.70	0.80	15	1.47	0.83	−2.75**
Hit you with an object
Younger sister	25	1.08	1.04	9	0.89	1.17	0.46
Younger brother	21	0.90	1.18	15	1.13	0.99	−0.61
Hit with a fist and/or punched you
Younger sister	24	0.75	0.99	9	1.00	1.12	−0.62
Younger brother	20	1.30	1.34	15	1.40	1.12	−0.23
Slapped you
Younger sister	25	1.00	1.00	9	0.78	1.09	0.56
Younger brother	20	0.60	0.99	15	0.80	1.15	−0.55
Kicked you
Younger sister	26	0.65	0.80	9	0.89	1.05	−0.70
Younger brother	20	0.65	0.88	15	0.93	1.03	−0.88
Scratched and/or pinched you
Younger sister	25	1.28	1.17	9	1.33	1.22	−0.12
Younger brother	21	1.10	1.14	15	1.00	1.20	0.24
Pulled your hair
Younger sister	25	0.92	1.00	9	1.00	1.22	−0.19
Younger brother	21	1.00	0.95	15	0.60	0.99	1.23
Bit you
Younger sister	25	0.68	0.69	9	0.78	1.09	−0.31
Younger brother	20	0.45	0.83	15	0.53	0.74	−0.31
Beat up and/or hit you hard
Younger sister	24	0.13	0.45	9	0.56	1.01	−1.71
Younger brother	18	0.33	0.69	15	0.40	0.83	−0.25
Threw you
Younger sister	26	0.04	0.20	9	0.00	0.00	0.58
Younger brother	18	0.11	0.32	15	0.13	0.35	−0.19
Tried to smother or tried to choke you
Younger sister	25	0.00	0.00	9	0.33	0.71	−2.43*
Younger brother	19	0.11	0.32	15	0.07	0.26	0.38
Threatened/used knife, gun, or sharp object
Younger sister	25	0.04	0.20	9	0.22	0.67	−1.25
Younger brother	18	0.06	0.24	15	0.20	0.41	−1.26

Note. LGBPQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual/queer.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Family Violence Prediction

Multivariate regression analyses using sibling and parent violence victimization scores as the dependent variables and gender, sexual identity (binary), sibling number, and years of cohabitation with siblings as predictors revealed that sexual identity significantly predicted parental violence scores, b = 7.03, t(80) = 3.61, p < .001. It also explained a significant proportion of variance in parental violence scores, R² = .15, F(1, 80) = 3.38, p < .05. This same test showed that neither gender nor sexual identity predicted sibling violence scores; yet, the years of sibling cohabitation significantly predicted this outcome, b = 0.65, t(80) = 2.01, p < .05. It, however, did not explain a significant proportion of variance in sibling violence scores. Running a regression analysis for sibling violence alone revealed that it was significantly predicted by several variables, including mother and father violence scores, as well as number of siblings and years of cohabitation with siblings (see Table 5). In other words, higher violence scores for mothers and fathers as perpetrators would predict higher sibling violence scores, with mothers’ violence scores having higher significance than fathers’.

Table 5.

Multiple Regression Analysis of Sibling Violence by Familial Characteristics.

	b	t	p
Mother’s violence score	0.73	3.60	.001
Father’s violence score	0.64	2.55	.013
Sibling number	1.84	2.22	.029
Years of sibling cohabitation	0.67	2.32	.023
Constant	−7.41	−1.36	.179
	R² = .31, F(4, 75) = 8.23, p < .001

Discussion

Analyzing family violence as a comprehensive variable made up of parental and sibling physical violence victimization scores gave a few statistically significant results, highlighting the concern initially posed with previous studies, which did not differentiate between the various types of physical violence that one might experience in the family and the various family members who might perpetrate this violence. The overall family violence score did, however, reconfirm the results from previous LGBPQ specific family violence studies which found higher victimization rates when compared with heterosexuals. Furthermore, the data suggest that perhaps parental victimization is specifically prevalent for LGBPQ individuals, to the extent of being predicted by LGBPQ identity. The participants in this study reported physical victimization from mothers and fathers, but from mothers especially. In this case, participants reported higher amounts of being scratched/pinched, having their hair pulled, and being threatened with or having a knife, gun, or sharp object used against them by their mothers when compared with heterosexual participants. Moreover, it appears that there may be a specific relationship between parental violence and pansexual/queer identities, although the sample size in this study was quite small, and thus, future research should explore this link further.

If LGBPQ participants experience parental violence, then one would also expect them to experience sibling violence, given the intergenerational transmission of violent behaviors hypothesis presented in previous family violence studies. Indeed, LGBPQ participants reported experiencing significantly higher amounts of violence than heterosexual participants, but only from younger brothers and only for what some might deem “less severe” or “minor” physical violence (i.e., being spanked and having hard objects thrown at them). Although violence types were not recategorized according to perceived severity, as in previous studies, some participants may experience violence from younger siblings as less severe or less serious, precisely because a younger sibling is presumably less capable of harming an older sibling. However, some individuals may experience the violence as severe, especially if the sibling is persistent, larger than them, and/or physically harms them via the violent act. The perceived severity of these violent experiences, thus, should be measured in future studies. Future research might also consider whether physical victimization by siblings differs in type according to specific sexual identities, as was suggested by the data presented on lesbian and gay participants in this study, which was, again, a small sample size.

Perhaps the least expected result from this study was a lack in gender differences for overall familial and parental violence. Given previous research, we anticipated that men might score family and parents higher than women for physical violence. Instead, men scored older siblings significantly higher than women for physical violence, specifically being spanked, hit with a fist and/or punched, beat up, and smothered/choked by an older brother. The men also scored older sisters higher for pushing/shoving/pulling than women. Although these data do confirm that older and younger brothers seem to perpetrate physical violence more so than sisters, it also suggests that perhaps women experience family violence differently, which was not captured by the Physical Violence subscale of the SNFI. It this case, it might be best to keep the SNFI intact to capture emotional, physical, and sexual violence in the family.

Finally, the data in this study support the notion that sibling violence is at least partially predicted by parental violence, such that having physically aggressive parents indicates you might also have physically aggressive siblings. If, as Balsam et al. (2005) noted, parents single out LGBPQ children for maltreatment, then it is surprising that the only significant difference in sibling physical violence between LGBPQ and heterosexual participants in this study was higher rates of violence perpetrated by younger brothers and sisters toward the LGBPQ participants than heterosexuals. Why was this not also the case for older siblings? Perhaps this is due to the idea that violence and aggression are practiced differently by age group: A younger sibling may learn to mimic physical aggression by a parent not knowing it is socially taboo until later in age, whereas an older sibling may have learned this already and thus uses other, more easily hidden forms of aggression (i.e., emotional, psychological, and sexual) to victimize their sibling. Without having further information about experiences with these other forms of violence, though, it is unclear whether parental violence predicts these also.

Implications

Too few studies on childhood familial victimization have explored the relationship between parental and sibling violence and how these differ according to gender, but especially sexual identity. As this study shows, sexual identity appears to be a significant factor in whether and how a person might experience familial violence in childhood. Given this as well as the work that has been accomplished to detail the detrimental effects of childhood victimization well into adulthood, more must be done to protect LGBTQ children, specifically, from negative family interactions. Moreover, families, and parents especially, must have resources, guides, and even training for reducing negative family interactions so that their children do not perpetuate a cycle of violence that could potentially last generations. For the resources, guides, and trainings to be effective, though, they must highlight the absolute normality of LGBTQ identities so that these children are no longer singled-out for maltreatment in the first place.

Limitations

Family violence research risks being limited by how the researchers define both family and violence. Defining violence based on the Physical Violence subscale of the SNFI ended up being too general (Simonelli et al., 2005). The study was, therefore, limited by the 15-item list of physically violent acts provided within the scale, which did not include things such as “burned/scalded” or “held in place.” This last form of physical violence might have been particularly prevalent for siblings who might use their own weight or strength to make their sibling feel trapped while being verbally victimized. Unfortunately, verbal and sexual violence were two types of violence that were not captured in this study. Often, people experience emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual violence all at once, so the results were limited by only exploring physical violence. In addition, results were limited by defining “family” too broadly. As such, the study did not capture whether “parent” really meant blood relative or non-blood relative, which might impact the study results. Similarly, “sibling” might have meant several things, depending on the respondent.

Another limitation to this study was its retrospective nature. Because the IRB at one university would not allow for “non-adult” participation, only 18+ year old participants could respond to the survey. Although the average age for participants was early 20s, this still meant they would be thinking about or recalling violence within their families from anywhere between 1 and 22 years prior. Remembering all violent acts with the family and the approximate number of incidents can be quite difficult, especially if the violence was extreme and required a level of disassociation. Despite this limitation, though, enough participants provided estimates on the amounts and types of violence they experienced that we could say these statistics, at worst, are underrepresentative of a larger sample. This said, the sample size and demographics for this study are two more limitations.

The sample size for this study was relatively low, especially for quantitative analyses. Having such a small N-size prevented adequately testing of the relationship between a nonbinary sexual identity and family violence. Furthermore, the sample was predominantly young, White, and female. There were very few lesbian and gay men, with fewer to no pansexual and queer individuals, depending on gender identity. Having more men, people of color, and LGBTQ individuals (especially men) would have likely significantly changed these results. Also in relation to sexual identity, it is unclear whether LGBTQ-identified participants in this study were visibly “gender atypical” in childhood, as described by D’Augelli et al. (2006). If they were, this might describe the differences in familial physical violence compared with heterosexuals, but if they were not visibly different, perhaps there were other factors contributing to this difference. Because participants were not asked about “coming out” or disclosure age, the study was limited to solely examining the relationship between sexual identity and childhood victimization without understanding other factors involved in family violence, such as economic and environmental stressors. Finally, participants were not asked if they lived with mothers, fathers, or both. Because mother-perpetrated violence appears more prevalent, it would be important to know whether and how this is related to single-parent stressors. Still, if sexual minorities report higher victimization rates in the streets, then victimization rates in the home, as presented in this study, cannot be far off.

Conclusion

Understanding childhood familial victimization requires that one examine parental and sibling violence in homes with both. Policy on child abuse perpetrated by a parent or guardian has been present in the United States since the late 1800s; yet, the first federal law did not emerge until the mid-1970s. Around the same time, researchers such as Gelles and Straus (1979) were beginning to publicize the high prevalence of sibling violence, describing it as one of the leading social health problems and the least studied. With the help of tools such as the SNFI (Simonelli et al., 2005), progress is being made to better understand the relationship between parental and sibling violence. With this progress in research comes a strong push for policy and practice that better address violence within the home. As noted earlier, this policy and practice can only be successful when it considers the diversity of human experience and the ways in which social norms around gender and sexuality dictate how parents view and treat their nonnormative children. In the meantime, parents can begin working toward positive family interactions by learning about LGBTQ identities and finding alternatives to physical violence.

Footnotes

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 publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Katherine Martinez received her PhD in sociology with certificates in Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies from the University of Colorado at Boulder. She teaches and develops the curriculum for gender and sexuality studies courses in the Institute for Women’s Studies and Services at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Her research interests are in gender and violence studies and queer theories, practices, and activism.

Courtney McDonald received her PhD in sociology from the University of Colorado at Boulder and her Master of Science in criminal justice from the University of North Georgia. She teaches classes relating to juvenile delinquency and victimology. Her research interests include issues of family violence and violence against women and sexual minorities.

References

Akers

R. L.

(1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Alvy

L. M.

Hughes

T. L.

Kristjanson

A. F.

Wilsnack

S. C.

(2013). Sexual identity group differences in child abuse and neglect. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2088-2111. doi:10.1177/0886260512471081

Asscher

J. J.

Van der Put

C. E.

Stams

G. J. J. M

. (2015). Gender differences in the impact of abuse and neglect victimization on adolescent offending behavior. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 215-225. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9668-4

Balsam

K. F.

Rothblum

Beauchaine

T. P.

(2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477-487. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.477

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis (10th Printing ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Button

D. M.

Gealt

(2010). High risk behaviors among victims of sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 131-140. doi:10.1007/sl0896-009-9276-x

Corliss

H. L.

Cochran

S. D.

Mays

V. M.

(2002). Reports of parental maltreatment during childhood in a United States population-based survey of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1165-1178. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00385-X

D’Augelli

A. R.

(2003). Lesbian and bisexual female youths aged 14 to 21: Developmental challenges and victimization experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 9-29. doi:10.1300/J155v07n04_02

D’Augelli

A. R.

Grossman

A. H.

Starks

M. T.

(2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462-1482. doi:10.1177/0886260506293482

10.

D’Augelli

A. R.

Hershberger

S. L.

Pilkington

N. W.

(1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361-371. doi:10.1037/h0080345

11.

Eriksen

Jensen

(2006). All in the family? Family environment factors in sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 497-507. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9048-9

12.

Eriksen

Jensen

(2008). A push or a punch: Distinguishing the severity of sibling violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 183-208. doi:10.1177/0886260508316298

13.

Fried

Sosland

(2011). Banishing bullying behavior: Transforming the culture of peer abuse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

14.

Gelles

R. J.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Violence in the American family. Journal of Social Issues, 35(2), 15-39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1979.tb00799.x

15.

Greenfield

E. A.

Marks

N. F.

(2010). Identifying experiences of physical and psychological violence in childhood that jeopardize mental health in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 161-171. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.08.012

16.

Hardy

M. S.

(2001). Physical aggression and sexual behavior among siblings: A retrospective study. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 255-268. doi:10.1023/A:1011186215874

17.

Higa

Hoppe

M. J.

Lindhorst

Mincer

Beadnell

Morrison

D. M.

. . . Mountz

(2012). Negative and positive factors associated with the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Youth & Society, 46, 663-687. doi:10.1177/0044118X12449630

18.

Hoffman

K. L.

Edwards

J. N.

(2004). An integrated theoretical model of sibling violence and abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 185-200. doi:10.1023/B:JOFV.0000028078.71745.a2

19.

Hoffman

K. L.

Kiecolt

K. J.

Edwards

J. N.

(2005). Physical violence between siblings: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 26(8), 1103-1130. doi:10.1177/0192513X05277809

20.

Hunter

(1992). Coming out and disclosures: LGBT persons across the life span. New York: Routledge.

21.

Kettrey

H. H.

Emery

B. C.

(2006). The discourse of sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 407-416. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9036-0

22.

Krienert

J. L.

Walsh

J. A.

(2011). My brother’s keeper: A contemporary examination of reported sibling violence using national level data, 2000-2005. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 331-342.

23.

Martinez

McDonald

(2016). By the hands of our brothers: An exploration of sibling-to-sibling aggression for victimized heterosexual and sexual minority women. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12, 242-256. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2015.1041069

24.

May-Chahal

(2006). Gender and child maltreatment: The evidence base. Social Work & Society, 4, 53-68.

25.

Scher

C. D.

Forde

D. R.

McQuaid

J. R.

Stein

M. B.

(2004). Prevalence and demographic correlates of childhood maltreatment in an adult community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 167-180. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.012

26.

Simonelli

C. J.

Mullis

Rohde

(2005). Scale of negative family interactions: A measure of parental and sibling aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(7), 792-803. doi: 10.1177/0886260505277102

27.

Stoddard

J. P.

Dibble

S. L.

Fineman

(2009). Sexual and physical abuse: A comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 407-420. doi:10.1080/00918360902821395

28.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). Ordinary violence, child abuse and wife beating: What do they have in common? In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 403-424). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

29.

Wiehe

V. R.

(1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional, and sexual trauma (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.