Parental intervention style and adult sibling conflicts: The mediating role of involvement in sibling bullying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing conflicts and aggressive behaviors between siblings is challenging for many parents, and parental responses to sibling conflict has been shown to influence the quality of children’s sibling interactions. Building on previous work on parental involvement in sibling conflict, the aim of this study was to investigate the mediating role of sibling bullying perpetration and victimization during childhood and adolescence in the relationship between parental intervention styles and conflicts in young adults’ sibling relationships. A sample of 302 individuals aged 17–33 years participated in the study. Results of structural equation modeling confirmed the proposed mediation model of young adults’ sibling conflicts. More precisely, parental control and parental noninvolvement were positively associated with experiences of sibling bullying perpetration and victimization, whereas parental coaching was associated with lower reports of sibling victimization. Involvement in sibling bullying during childhood and adolescence was, for its part, associated with sibling conflicts in young adulthood. Results of the current study confirmed that parenting intervention styles can influence children’s involvement in sibling bullying, which in turn, can predict conflicts in adult sibling relationships. In line with the family system theory, these results underline that parents can inadvertently play a role in the development of dysfunctional sibling relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".