A Qualitative Exploration of Sibling Relationship Quality Among Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence

Sibling Relationships in Middle Childhood

To clarify how and why sibling relationships may promote resilience among eIPV children, it is necessary to understand the significance of these relationships in middle childhood (Buist et al., 2013). During middle childhood (the period between the ages of 5 and 12), siblings have frequent, emotionally intense interactions, and this relationship provides a relational forum to practice and achieve key social–emotional developmental tasks (Kramer, 2010, 2014). Among general population children, those with siblings tend to develop more social skills between kindergarten and fifth grade than those with no siblings (Downey et al., 2015).

Research has proposed possible mechanisms by which sibling relationships foster socioemotional development, an outcome relevant to resilience among eIPV children (Kramer, 2014). Sibling relationships are characterized by interpersonal competencies (e.g., emotion regulation), which bolster socioemotional development (Kramer, 2010). Children cultivate emotional understanding and prosocial skills through regular sibling activities (Kramer, 2014). Shared fantasy play necessitates complex, interpersonal interactions, such as compromising and engaging empathetic imagination to create imagined characters (Kramer, 2014). The skills siblings utilize in play directly translate to the development of prosocial behavior (Hughes et al., 2018), which is particularly important for eIPV children who are at greater risk for poorer socioemotional outcomes than their non-eIPV peers (Bender et al., 2022). Scholars also assert that conflict with siblings may also foster healthy conflict management and resolution skills (Kramer, 2014). The sibling relationship, which provides frequent experiences of conflict coupled with relative safety, offers a unique opportunity to hone emotion identification and expression skills (Kramer, 2010). This relational context may be important for eIPV children; by witnessing caregivers use violence, these children can construct schemas around violent conflict, which can be unlearned by practicing adaptive conflict resolution (Evans et al., 2022).

SRQ and Resilience Among eIPV Siblings

Despite the significance and value of this bond, comparatively little research has been done on the sibling relationship in the general population, and few studies have examined the nuances of SRQ among eIPV children. Among studies that have investigated eIPV siblings, SRQ has consistently emerged as an important promoter of resilient child adjustment following eIPV (Iturralde et al., 2013; Piotrowski et al., 2014, 2022). One study found that SRQ moderated the association between eIPV and adjustment outcomes; among sibling dyads with higher levels of positive sibling interactions, siblings reported fewer anxiety symptoms compared with siblings with more negative sibling interactions (Iturralde et al., 2013). Another study found that siblings with intense relationships (i.e., high warmth and high conflict) exhibited more prosocial behaviors than those in other sibling relationships (Piotrowski et al., 2022). Other studies suggest that a high-quality sibling relationship may have differential effects based on sibling structural characteristics (e.g., birth order and gender; Piotrowski et al., 2014). The limited qualitative work in this area adds further complexity by centering the voices of eIPV siblings (Åkerlund, 2017; Callaghan et al., 2016). These youths shared how close sibling bonds provide an opportunity for co-regulation as older and younger siblings mutually care for one another in violent households (Åkerlund, 2017; Callaghan et al., 2016). However, older eIPV siblings described how care for younger siblings can contribute to a complex constellation of increased responsibility, worry, caregiving, and dismissal of their own needs (Callaghan et al., 2016).

Theoretical Perspectives on Sibling Relationships

A small body of research has posited that sibling relationships can be examined through an attachment lens; siblings, like caregivers, may offer a secure base through which children achieve developmental tasks (Whiteman et al., 2011). For example, sibling relationships have been measured as significant and supportive bonds among children in foster care, and thus sibling group foster care placements are recommended to maintain these healthy attachments and promote child developmental outcomes (Wojciak et al., 2018). Attachment theory has also been applied to general population adolescents (Noel et al., 2018) and adult sibling relationships (Fraley & Tancredy, 2012) to conceptualize the salience of this relationship over the life course. Among eIPV children, siblings may provide meaningful support to one another, and that these relationships may buffer children from the negative sequelae associated with eIPV.

An important component of attachment theory is how early attachment relationships provide an internal working model for future relationships (Bowlby, 1969), which is particularly compelling given how sibling relationships can foster socioemotional skills meaningful for relational connection (Kramer, 2010, 2014). In the general population literature, positive SRQ is associated with increased peer social competence and a broader social network (Yucel & Downey, 2015). Among eIPV children, the sibling bond may affect the relationship between eIPV and socioemotional outcomes by offering a relational context to practice critical relational skills (e.g., relational repairs) and experience affirmation and connection.

SRQ: Measurement Challenges

However, this specific pathway from sibling attachment to resilient socioemotional outcomes has been minimally explored, partly due to existing measures of SRQ that do not allow for nuanced assessments of sibling relationship dynamics. The most widely used measures of SRQ are the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (SR-Q; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) and the Sibling Relationship Inventory (SRI; Stocker & McHale, 1992). In both the SR-Q and SRI, dimensions of warmth (e.g., intimacy), conflict (e.g., quarreling), rivalry (e.g., competition), and relative power/status are assessed (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Stocker & McHale, 1992). Existing measures are limited in three main ways. First, both measures were tested with children who were white and from primarily middle-class, two-parent families (Holmes et al., 2024), and neither measure was tested specifically among younger children. Little is known, therefore, about how these measures capture SRQ dynamics in racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse families, nor have these measures been validated among eIPV or young children. Second, these measures have not explicitly been tested as a measure of sibling attachment (Noel et al., 2018). Such measures are essential to testing a conceptualization of the sibling relationship as an attachment relationship, and for further elucidating how these relationships can be protective for eIPV children. Finally, these measures assess conflict as an indicator of negative relationship quality even though some forms of sibling conflict are normative and expected (Dirks et al., 2015). Furthermore, some conflict may be an essential part of children’s socioemotional development (Kramer, 2010). Existing qualitative work among eIPV siblings (Åkerlund, 2017; Callaghan et al., 2016) has added more nuance to the understanding of SRQ, and similar work may be useful in expanding measures of SRQ.

Participants

Child participants were recruited through a parent sample from an online survey study about sibling relationships, child adjustment outcomes, and overall family functioning. The online survey was conducted from June through September 2020 and had Institutional Review Board approval from Case Western Reserve University. To be eligible for the online survey study, parent participants had to (a) be a mother or father; (b) have two or more biological children currently living with them; (c) have two of those children be between the ages of 5 and 12; (d) reside in the United States; and (e) speak and understand English. Of the 199 parents who completed the online survey, 92 were identified as eligible for this study by (a) indicating consent for contact for future research participation and (b) endorsing at least one item on the past year’s psychological and/or physical violence subscales of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). All eligible parents were invited to participate, and convenience sampling was used until six families were recruited to meet sample size recommendations (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Polkinghorne, 1989, 2005).

Procedures

From April 2021 through January 2022, parents from the 92 eligible families were emailed about follow-up study participation. If interested, parents were given information about the study and informed of their participant rights and protections. As part of the recruitment process, parents were asked about their access to the internet and the child’s comfort with technology. If families opted for study involvement, an interview date and time were scheduled at the participant’s convenience. Parents were consented, provided consent for both children, and then each child was assented. Only two children per family between 5 and 12 years were recruited into the study and participated in all study procedures. If a family had more than two siblings in this age range, the oldest and youngest siblings in that age range were selected for participation. Over approximately 60 minutes, all data were collected via Zoom due to safety precautions associated with COVID-19. Following the interview, families were mailed compensation (i.e., $25 cash for parents, and a toy valued at approximately $5 for each child).

Characteristics of Families

Family 1 consisted of two brothers, aged 13 (Javon ¹ ) and 6 (Josiah). Both children were Black and lived in a single-parent, low-income household. The mother reported that their SRQ had improved since the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased “family time,” and both Javon and Josiah also independently conveyed a pandemic-related improvement in SRQ. The interviews with each child and the play session occurred in a living room. Throughout their play session, Javon and Josiah jointly played with blocks, and 75.65% of their interactions were positive.

The children in Family 2 were two girls, Josie (age 5½) and Lucy (age 4). The sisters were white and lived in a two-parent, middle-class household. Josie, Lucy, and their mother reported no identifiable SRQ change since the pandemic. The interviews and play sessions occurred in a large living and dining room. Throughout the play sessions, the siblings engaged in intermittent imaginary play, and just over half (52.08%) of their interactions were positive.

Family 3 also consisted of two girls, Jessalie (age 8) and Blakelyn (age 5). These girls were white and lived in a two-parent, low-income household. No notable change in their SRQ since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by both the mother and children. During the play session, the girls played Red Light, Green Light outdoors with periodic intervention by their mother to help them navigate through conflict, and then transitioned to their outdoor trampoline. Throughout their play session, 59.62% of their interactions were positive.

Kayden (age 12) and Ryder (age 8) were two boys from Family 4, and they had a middle sister who was not part of the study. These brothers were white and were part of a single-parent, low-income household. Both boys reported no change in SRQ, but their mother indicated that their SRQ had increased in the past year, partially due to them “leaning on each other” in the wake of their father’s recent death. While neither Kayden nor Ryder discussed their father’s passing, their mother repeatedly stated the impact of this event on their family. The interviews and play sessions were conducted in a living room. The boys played with toy cars and then the board game “Guess Who?” during their play session, all the while trying to manage an enthusiastically playful dog. All (100.00%) of their play session interactions were positive.

Family 5 consisted of an older brother (Noah, 12) and younger sister (Sophia, 7) who were the first and fourth child in a family of six. Noah and Sophia were white and were part of a two-parent, low-income household. While neither child noted a change in their relationship since the pandemic, their mother reported that their SRQ had decreased but attributed this change to their different schools and interests. The individual interviews took place in a storage room and then a bedroom due to issues with internet connectivity. Noah spent most of the play session in an oversized armchair on an electronic device, while Sophia played with her other siblings who were also in the living room. During the play session, 61.90% of their interactions were positive.

Family 6 had two brothers, Michael (age 9) and Mason (age 7), and they also had a younger sister who was frustrated she was not able to participate in the study. The brothers were white and were part of a two-parent, middle-class household. The mother reported a decrease in SRQ during the pandemic because “they were together 24/7” and “had barely any time to themselves.” Michael described pandemic challenges related to homeschooling, but Mason felt that he had gotten along better with his brother during this time. The interviews took place in a bedroom with a big wooden bed, and the boys each snuggled under the covers with their dog while they answered questions. The boys transitioned outside to their large backyard jungle gym for the play session. Nearly three-fifths (59.82%) of their interactions were positive.

Sibling Relationship Themes

Five main themes were distilled through the analysis process, and each of these is discussed through descriptions drawn from both the audio and video data with siblings.

Theme 1: Siblings as Playmates and Companions

Children consistently highlighted the importance of siblings as playmates and companions. Having a sibling as a steady and available playmate was a characteristic of the relationship that children described as important. Children expressed how one of their favorite things about having a brother/sister was having someone to play with or having someone who would share toys or snacks with them. As Kayden reflected on the positive components of his relationship with his brother (“he likes to play cars all the time with me”), he noted the frequency and willingness of his brother to engage with him. When explaining what he found most valuable about having a sibling, Javon shared: “we get to play with each other . . . we get to be around each other,” underscoring how siblings’ virtue lies, in part, in their steadfast companionship.

Children also talked through the ways in which they engage in play and described taking time to play with their sibling as an expression of care and affection. Javon explained: “[I show I care about him] by playing with him a lot and being around him for a period of time before I go back into my room.” The mechanics of engaging in play were also a way to communicate care, specifically the ways in which toys were shared. Sophia elaborated on this by describing [her brother] “lets us play with the toys he used to have and sometimes plays with us.” The latter thread of this theme—play and companionship as a demonstration of care—was reflected in the play sessions. Throughout their play, Javon and Josiah were thoughtful about taking turns with one another (“now you do something [with the blocks]”) and finding ways to prolong the joint play through (“you got a good idea . . . what do I do [to contribute]?”).

Theme 2: Siblings as Caregivers

Children also described the ways in which siblings provide meaningful help and caregiving; older siblings spoke of a sense of purpose and responsibility, while younger siblings reflected on this as a valuable part of the relationship. Kayden noted that “[It’s important] to have someone that could look up to you.” Javon shared that an important part of his relationship with his younger brother “is having to take care of him, make sure he’s good . . . so like, so like I could see to stuff that he might need in the future when he grows up.” Noah similarly identified a big part of his role is to “take care of [younger siblings], listen to what they say, and if they need help, help them.” He further elaborated, “I feel responsible if the parents aren’t there or they went to the store, I have to watch [my younger siblings].” Despite the weight of this importance, Noah underscored how learning this responsibility could benefit his future self by reflecting (“[responsibility is important] because it helps with job skills”). His younger sister, Sophia, considered the importance of his role as a caregiver and the sense of safety and security he creates: “I like [having an older brother]. Noah takes good care of us when the parents aren’t home. He locks the doors, and he makes sure that all the windows have curtains on them.”

Play sessions also represented the ways in which children enact caretaking of siblings through play. Javon, for example, creatively used the lettered blocks to help Josiah practice his reading, verbally encouraging him (“Sound it out!”). Kayden coached Ryder through the rules of their board game and repeatedly prompted him on the next steps of play to ensure fairness. Throughout their session, Josie and Lucy engaged in an imaginary play wherein Josie elicited care or help from her sister through her play (e.g., pretending to be a crying baby). Lucy consistently responded to these requests for caregiving and, by doing so, continued their play together.

Theme 3: Siblings as Sources of Affection

Children described the various ways their siblings were a source of affection and warmth. Children reported the ways their siblings were generally nice to them. Kayden reflected on the benefits of being kind toward one’s siblings: “I’ve learned that you can be nice to [a sibling] and they can be nice back . . . because if we treat someone the same, they’ll treat you back the same . . . I learned that from my brother and at school.” Children also talked about verbal expressions of affection, such as Sophia describing how she tells Noah, “I like having him as my brother.” Both Javon and Josiah used verbal affection toward one another as an expression of care. Javon elaborated from his perspective: “He’ll come up to me every single time I come out of my room, and he’ll come up to me and say, ‘I love you’ and say, ‘You’re the best’ and stuff . . . I feel good [when he says stuff like that].” Siblings also described a general sense of deep connection with and love toward their siblings. Josiah simply said, “[Javon] is my best friend . . . that’s a really important thing.” Similarly, Blakelyn described this warmth toward her sister, “I like sisters, like a lot . . . I want to stay with my sister forever.” In the play sessions, one of the most notable examples of this theme was how Josiah frequently verbally expressed his affection for Javon throughout their play together, saying, for example, “you’re doing great, Javon.”

Theme 4: Siblings as Sources of Annoyance and Distress

In addition to describing affection for their siblings, participants talked about the various ways siblings were a source of frustration, pain, and conflict. Younger and older siblings tended to discuss this in slightly different ways; older siblings described ways in which their younger siblings can be “annoying” or “bossy.” Javon explained: “[Josiah] gets into a lot of stuff . . . and go into people’s rooms . . . And runnin’ around and jumpin,’ being too loud . . . and like he will hurt himself, so I have to like calm him down and stuff.” Similarly, Michael described the annoyance of Mason playing with his favorite toy and Noah simply said, “[My siblings are] annoying.” In contrast, younger siblings reflected more on the ways in which siblings could cause distress. When asked what was hard about having a sibling, Jessalie described how hard it is when her sister is “being mean . . . like pushing around, not being nice [with words].” Her sister, Blakelyn, echoed this sentiment: “[It’s hard when] sissy pushed me off the trampoline . . . when she says, ‘leave me alone.’” Ryder spoke of the strain of frequent sibling conflict (e.g., “he fights with me a lot”), and Lucy shared feeling upset when Josie tells her not to go into her room or play with her toys. Play sessions reflected some patterns of sibling conflict. Jessalie and Blakelyn, for example, argued about cheating during their game of Red Light, Green Light, ultimately leading to a mediation by their mother. Michael and Mason engaged in physical roughhousing throughout their session, playing out some of the frustrations they expressed in their individual interviews.

Theme 5: Siblings as Problem-Solvers

Siblings talked about numerous ways in which they engaged in conflict management and resolution with their siblings. To prevent conflict from escalating, Josiah described how “we talk about it, and we figure it out.” Lucy shared how when Josie does not let her into her room—a point of contention—they choose to play in Lucy’s room instead. These sorts of negotiations around conflict were reflected in play interactions with Josie and Lucy where they took turns explaining their perspective, considering that of the other, and finding a compromise. Siblings engaged in other creative problem-solving. Kayden, for example, described how he and Ryder collaboratively developed a system to allocate toy cars to each person, store the cars to reflect this division, and, in doing so, prevent any future bickering. Siblings also described the use of disengagement as an effective strategy to “get space and calm down.” When he and his brother argue, for example, Ryder said he goes into his room and “locks the door to feel better,” while Noah shared that he walks away when his siblings fight. Sophia described her calculated disengagement in conflicts about the use of the remote: “When we fight sometimes, like if we’re fighting about something, I usually give it to [my brother] and then play with my other siblings or go play outside. I give him what he wants and then I do what I want . . . and then no more fighting happens.” Siblings thoughtfully reflected on how they problem-solved after conflict. Siblings talked about the importance and challenges of apologizing. Mason noted: “My older brother never says he’s sorry . . . I say it sometimes.” Blakelyn similarly shared, “When I say sorry when I hurt her, and she doesn’t say it’s ok and it hurts my feelings.” However, Jessalie said, “I usually say, ‘I’m sorry’ and she says ‘OK’ and then it’s just over.” Siblings talked about other ways of connecting (i.e., playing together) to make up after conflict.

Limitations

First, while convenience sampling was necessary to ensure adequate recruitment of eIPV families during the COVID-19 pandemic, it resulted in a relatively homogeneous sample. Families were predominantly white and low-income, limiting the inclusion of families with other race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position. In addition, families primarily reported past year psychological IPV, limiting the transferability of these findings to siblings exposed to other forms of IPV. It is possible that the data collection approach (e.g., virtual, home-based interviews) posed a safety risk for parents still in violent relationships, and, as such, these families were less represented in our sample. Second, while the data collection process seemed convenient for families, it did present some complications. Building a connection over Zoom was challenging despite rapport-building prior to interviews. There were also occasional issues with volume and internet connectivity. In addition, this data collection process made it difficult to ask questions about witnessing IPV in a sensitive and ethical manner. Participants in this study were asked intentionally broad questions and, as such, it is possible that some of the unique nuances of sibling relationships in the context of IPV are not reflected in these data. Finally, this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of unprecedented stress, especially for families with young children (Cassinat et al., 2021). While families were asked about the impacts of the pandemic, to layer on context to these data, this historical event likely had other unmeasured family dynamic effects.

Implications for Practice and Policy

For practitioners working with eIPV children (e.g., clinicians and domestic violence advocates), the sibling relationship needs to be considered as an important attachment relationship. All practitioners working with eIPV children must assess sibling relationships, with attention to patterns of sibling conflict navigation and resolution and sibling roles. For children who are in sibling caretaking roles, practitioners can work with families to ensure that children have age-appropriate responsibilities while also honoring how caretaking may be a source of purpose and meaning (Callaghan et al., 2016). To nurture SRQ, efforts can be made to support sibling connection through sibling activities, joint sibling therapeutic sessions, or guidance for caregivers around nurturing the sibling bond (Kramer, 2010). Systems interfacing with eIPV children (e.g., the child welfare system) must consider the protective role of the sibling relationship in placement and visitation decisions (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019).

Areas for Future Research

Theoretical work conceptualizing the sibling relationship must be conducted, especially considering how this relationship may be framed through an attachment theory lens. Additional research is also needed to better understand sibling relationships in the context of IPV. Qualitative research is a particularly important next step for expanding conceptualizations and measures of SRQ in the context of IPV; indeed, work by Åkerlund (2017) and Callaghan et al. (2016) is especially insightful in showing how children make sense of their relationship in the unique context of IPV and the rich nuance in how these relationships are experienced by children in this context (e.g., sibling caregiving as a source of agency and a burden). Future qualitative research in this area would benefit from ethical, age-appropriate conversations with children about how they experience and make sense of this relationship in a family impacted by violence, such as sibling interactions that are uniquely influenced by eIPV (e.g., if children try to sort out conflict independently rather than involve caregivers or whether and when children seek out siblings as sources of comfort during times) or the ways in which their relationship has changed in the context of eIPV (e.g., older siblings as caregivers). Furthermore, future studies using observational data are also needed to learn how children understand and live out their sibling relationship in this family environment.

Additional SRQ measurement work is essential to measure sibling attachment, more carefully assess patterns of conflict in relationships, and ensure that existing measures are valid and reliable among diverse and/or eIPV populations. An evidence and gap map of studies of SRQ found that the majority of studies (n = 164, 69.79%) relied on child-reported SRQ (Holmes et al., 2024). However, few of these measures were developed specifically for young children (Holmes et al., 2024), suggesting the need for future measurement work in this area. While the goal of this study was not to compare SRQ between eIPV and non-eIPV children, future work would benefit from exploring how the contours of the sibling relationship and/or SRQ differ by eIPV. Measures that can assess the quality of sibling attachment and the siblings’ capacity for conflict resolution are required to add depth to current SRQ domains. Accurate and precise measures of SRQ are needed, too, to inform future intervention development. The capacity to identify specific malleable behaviors and interactions, rather than general domains of warmth and conflict, can inform interventions to build or amplify these skills. Work done by Kramer (2010, 2014) is particularly promising as it provides specific competencies that can be fostered by sibling relationships. Future research needs to better understand how high-quality sibling relationships are then translated into healthy peer and romantic relationships, particularly among eIPV children (Yucel & Downey, 2015).