Siblings’ Interpretations of Conflict: \nThe Link Between Relationship Quality and Conflict Strategies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research demonstrates that children who have a positive sibling relationship quality also employ more constructive conflict strategies, however, the mechanism underlying this association is unclear. Peer research suggests that children’s interpretation of disputes is associated with the way conflict is resolved, however, the interpretive processes underlying sibling disputes are understudied. This study adapted methodological approaches frequently used in peer research (i.e., hypothetical provocation scenarios in which the perpetrator’s intent is ambiguous) for use with siblings. We expected that children’s attribution of intent would explain the link between sibling relationship quality and conflict strategies employed during sibling disputes. A total of 122 six-to eight-year-old children (62 younger and 60 older siblings; 49 girls) were presented with ambiguous provocation scenarios and asked to attribute their siblings’ intent. Responses were coded as accidental, instrumental, hostile, or Machiavellian. Questionnaires assessed conflict strategies, types of aggression, and sibling relationship quality. Results revealed that children attributed more hostile intent to older siblings and instrumental intent to younger siblings. Moreover, when children had a more negative relationship quality with their siblings they also reported using fewer constructive strategies and engaged in more aggressive behaviors. In addition, sibling relationship quality was negatively associated with hostile intent and positively linked to instrumental intent. Furthermore, children who attributed more instrumental intent also used more constructive conflict strategies. Finally, attributions of intent did not explain the link between relationship quality and conflict strategies employed. This study suggests that methodologies commonly used with peers can be adapted to further our understanding of conflict processes among siblings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".