Family Dynamics and Young Adults’ Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Sibling Bullying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a common form of family violence, sibling bullying is often viewed as harmless by families and society. Consequently, it has not received as much attention in research compared with peer bullying or other types of family violence, such as interpartner violence, child abuse, and elder abuse. Considering that sibling relationships have lasting effects on children's development, this retrospective study focused on the antecedents and outcomes of sibling bullying. Grounded in family system theory and social learning theory, it explored whether sibling bullying during childhood and adolescence mediated the relationship between negative family dynamics (i.e., sibling rivalry, interparental hostility, and parental hostility) and young adults' well-being (i.e., sense of competence, internalized problems, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life). Data from 216 respondents were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results revealed that young adults who reported higher levels of sibling rivalry and interparental hostility were more likely to be victims of sibling bullying. In turn, sibling bullying was associated with lower sense of competence, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, as well as more internalized problems. Parents' hostile behaviors toward their children were not associated with sibling bullying but were negatively associated with well-being in early adulthood. Our work underlines the importance of harmonious family dynamics and the need for sibling bullying to be taken more seriously by parents and family members. From a clinical point of view, our findings suggest that clinicians and human service workers should adopt a family-level approach when trying to reduce sibling bullying and its negative outcomes by educating parents about the interdependence of family 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 | 0.000 | 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".