Introduction

Conflicts are a significant aspect of sibling relationships in childhood. While they can be viewed positively, as they contribute to children’s individual development (Corsaro, 2003) and some reveal sibling closeness (Winther et al, 2015), they are not necessarily harmless. Children often construct physical conflicts with siblings as an ordinary part of sibling interaction, acknowledging that these conflicts can be emotionally harmful at times (Davies, 2015). Some children feel that they can take out their anger on their siblings verbally or physically because they will receive minor consequences for doing so (Punch, 2008). This leads Punch (2008: 340) to ask ‘why physical violence becomes tolerated within the domestic space of the family but would not be acceptable in wider society’. The issue becomes more complex given the difficulty of differentiating between ‘normative and abusive sibling interaction’, as ‘the point at which sibling aggression escalates into assault has yet to be established’ (Caffaro and Conn-Caffaro, 1998: 72).

This article takes up the issue of such a ‘point’. It aims to explore children’s views on sibling conflicts and violence by addressing the following question: how do children perceive the boundary between non-violent and violent sibling conflicts? Thereby, the boundary is understood in terms of symbolic boundaries, which refer to ‘conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space’ (Lamont and Molnár, 2002: 168). Such boundaries are constantly negotiated and (re)produced by social actors (Lamont and Molnár, 2002).

By posing this research question, the article addresses various research gaps across social disciplines. Sibling conflicts represent a desideratum within German-speaking educational science research (Bossek, 2024). Sociological research on siblinghood from children’s views addresses violence only on the sidelines (Edwards et al, 2005; 2006; Punch, 2008; 2018). Simultaneously, sibling violence remains the most common type of intra-family violence (Hoffman and Edwards, 2004; Eriksen and Jensen, 2009). Despite the increasing research on sibling violence as a problematic issue for children and their families (Perkins and Grossman, 2019), it remains under-studied (Elliott et al, 2020; Davies, 2023).

The data examined in this article stem from the Children’s Well-Being in German-speaking Switzerland (WoKidS) project (2021–25). The topic of potentially violent sibling conflicts emerged inductively from children’s narratives during the interviews. To deepen the understanding of children’s perspectives, the interview data were subsequently discussed with newly recruited children in a focus group. During the analysis, Popitz’s (2017) power-informed understanding of violence served as a sensitising concept. Building on the findings, I argue that children do not always agree in identifying sibling conflicts as crossing the boundary into violence. When discussing specific conflicts, some children suggest strategies like reverting to verbal communication or involving parents, indicating that they do view these situations as harmful and boundary crossing. In contrast, other children relativise the harm, drawing on factors like the child’s age, birth order position or socio-geographical discourses on normality.

Children’s sibling conflicts and violence?

While previous studies have investigated the role of sibling conflicts in children’s lives, only a few have explored the intersections between conflicts and violence, particularly from the perspectives of children themselves. This section provides an overview of how existing research addresses children’s sibling conflicts and where it touches but does not fully elaborate on the issue of violence.

Children demonstrate agency during peer conflicts. They construct their own conflict meanings and engage in resolution strategies suitable to these meanings using various communicative tools, such as gestures, facial expressions and body language (Dittrich et al, 2001). Some children engage in competitive ‘oppositional talk’, which involves teasing and insults (Corsaro, 2003: 170). Corsaro (2003) claims that this helps children build a peer-group identity and offers them opportunities to demonstrate their interests and knowledge.

However, adult interpretations of conflicts sometimes differ from those of children. Some adults view conflicts as threatening and emphasise the importance of discussing issues rather than resorting to physical aggression or verbal altercations (Corsaro, 2003). Similarly, some educators in daycare centres focus on children’s perceived deficits in conflict resolution, legitimising their intervention in children’s conflicts by claiming that children need help (Dittrich et al, 2001).

Moving on to consider sibling conflicts specifically. German-speaking educational science research regards children’s sibling conflicts as, among other things, a space for learning and education through pedagogical practice. Children learn to resolve conflicts with siblings on a horizontal level, in contrast to conflicts with parents, which involve a vertical power imbalance (Brock, 2020). Especially in families with many siblings, children have a protected learning environment in which they can try out conflict resolution (Schmolke, 2019). Furthermore, parents influence the likelihood and course of sibling conflicts, for example, through unequal treatment of siblings, biased conflict interventions or latent conflict avoidance (Brock, 2020). Additionally, sibling conflicts represent an arena for parental pedagogical practice (Bossek, 2024). By examining how parents intervene in their children’s sibling conflicts educationally, the messages parents convey and the challenges they face, it is possible to identify the guiding principles of parental pedagogical practice (Bossek, 2024). However, while these studies offer valuable insights into sibling conflicts, they lack direct engagement with children’s own views on conflicts, including in connection to violence.

Research rooted in childhood studies places a stronger emphasis on children’s perspectives. Children illustrate how some conflicts reveal closeness in sibling relationships (Winther et al, 2015). Such conflicts indicate the stability of a sibling relationship despite arguments; they help children get a feeling about the boundaries of their siblings and allow them to express their accumulated frustrations (Winther et al, 2015). Furthermore, some children experience a sense of permanence (Punch, 2008) and familiarity (Dunn and Kendrick, 1982, cited in Punch, 2008) in their sibling relationships. To explore children’s sibling interactions, Punch (2008: 334–5) draws on Goffman’s (1959) notion of the ‘backstage’, elaborating that ‘backstage activity occurs when an individual loosens control over their actions, appearance and attitudes’. The author concludes that ‘the boredom of backstage daily living can encourage children to take advantage of their familiarity, pushing the boundaries of socially appropriate behaviour’ (Punch, 2008: 341). This may lead to violent interactions.

Children often describe their siblings as ‘annoying’ (Edwards et al, 2005: 45). Sibling conflicts originate from this ‘annoyingness’, entailing conflicts of interest, violations of spatial autonomy and refusal to fulfil tasks for older siblings (Edwards et al, 2005: 49). Edwards et al (2005) further state that what is considered annoying also depends on the child’s birth-order position, revealing power struggles between the older and younger siblings. Since violence from older siblings poses a real threat to some children, many younger siblings try to solve conflicts using non-confrontational means. They generally view yelling and violence as ineffective strategies for ending the annoying behaviour, as they would only exacerbate the situation further (Edwards et al, 2005).

Physical sibling conflicts often revolve around moral issues (Davies, 2015). While schools typically have firm rules regarding physical harm to children, physical interactions at home are generally more flexible, taking into account children’s age and experience (Davies, 2015). This notion leads children to make their ‘sense of moralities around hitting one another’ (Davies, 2015: 77).

Children engage in various levels of conflict with their siblings. Gulløv et al (2015) introduce the concept of frictions to explore children’s ambiguous emotional practices with their siblings. These frictions can be regular, downplayed or intense. Regular frictions show feelings of connection through tension, while downplayed ones name potential conflicts that children avoid to ‘achieve more balanced relationships’ (Gulløv et al, 2015: 515). Intense frictions are so acute that they lead children to completely reconfigure their sibling relationships. Children do so by arranging ‘distance between some siblings and strengthening emotional bonds between others’ (Gulløv et al, 2015: 513). While violence can occur in all types of frictions, the nature of intense frictions suggests that they might be more likely to entail violence, as they are acute and can lead to the breakdown of the relationship.

Further research comments on the parental (or caretaker) role in preventing violence during sibling conflicts. In their study on sibling violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, Perkins et al (2022: 748) argue that ‘a decrease in parental supervision of children’ during the pandemic may have led to ‘increased sibling violence’, as children had to deal ‘with conflictual situations themselves that may escalate into violence’. The study by Rypi (2023: 210) investigates the boundary between ‘sibling quarreling’ and violence from the perspectives of psychotherapists and family and school counsellors. According to the findings, practitioners believe that ‘parents (or other adults) are mainly responsible for the sibling violence because they let it happen’ (Rypi, 2023: 222). Simultaneously, adults can also be seen ‘as victims because of multi-exposure to different kinds of social problems’ (Rypi, 2023: 222). Practitioners further discuss the boundary between sibling conflicts and violence in relation to, among other things, children’s age, individual abilities and power asymmetries, as well as the consequences for the victim (Rypi, 2023).

While the discussed studies touch upon sibling violence, they do not elaborate on how the children themselves perceive the boundary between non-violent and violent sibling conflicts. This article approaches this research gap. It starts by addressing the ‘violence problem’, namely the difficulty of defining violence.

The violence problem

Violence is a multifaceted term characterised by ambiguity (Heitmeyer and Hagan, 2003). Its definition remains a subject of ongoing debate (Imbusch, 2003). While there is a ‘broad consensus that violence causes injury and sometimes death and results in many different forms of destruction, so that there are always victims’, the agreement ends there, if not earlier (Heitmeyer and Hagan, 2003: 4). Violence is also characterised by the ‘overstepping of boundaries’; these boundaries, however, are fluid and subject to adaptation dependent on the prevailing discourse (Heitmeyer and Hagan, 2003: 4). Rypi (2023: 213) further states that ‘violence is a complex phenomenon and does not have objective and universal properties’.

Along with general violence, sibling violence defies straightforward conceptualisation (Eriksen and Jensen, 2009). One major challenge lies in distinguishing sibling violence from related phenomena. Eriksen and Jensen (2009) note that researchers often use the terms ‘violence’, ‘conflicts’, ‘abuse’ and ‘aggression’ interchangeably. Moreover, sibling violence remains highly normalised due to a ‘strong cultural current’ and a ‘scientific orientation’, where sibling aggression is framed as ‘normal’ sibling rivalry (Eriksen and Jensen, 2009: 185). Simultaneously, a problematising discourse on sibling violence exists that criticises the normalising one for ‘hiding and downplaying siblings’ experience of violence’ (Rypi, 2023: 221).

During the data analysis, the power-informed understanding of violence developed by German sociologist Heinrich Popitz (2017) served as a sensitising concept. Popitz (2017) argues that power is ubiquitous, universal, humanly produced and thus modifiable. Not all power is to be connoted negatively, as it is necessary in many contexts, for example, in protecting and educating children or ensuring order and peace (Popitz, 2017). For Popitz, violence constitutes ‘a form of power of action’ (Garrett, 2018: 495) that involves one’s ‘capacity to inflict harm on others … in an action aimed at them’ (Popitz, 2017: 11, 25). This harm may manifest itself as the violation of people’s ‘bodily integrity’, ‘economic livelihood’ or ‘social participation’ (Popitz, 2017: 17). Building on this concept, I suggest an analytical extension to the power of action by adding the violation of emotional integrity to the list, which can manifest itself through, for example, insults or humiliation (Honneth, 1990).

Data and methods

The data discussed in this article stem from the WoKidS project (2021–25), which is part of a multinational research network: Children’s Understanding of Well-Being (CUWB). WoKidS aims to explore the subjective well-being of children aged eight to 14 through qualitative research approaches (for full details, see Heite et al, 2023).

The project is grounded in the epistemological foundations of new childhood studies. This paradigm recognises children as agentic social actors (James and Prout, 1997) positioned within generational power relations (Alanen, 2009). Consequently, the importance of seeking children’s perspectives in research has been emphasised (Harcourt and Einarsdottir, 2011). As stated in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), children have the right to express their own views freely. Furthermore, as ‘central informants of their life worlds’ (Christensen and James, 2008: 1), children offer perspectives to which adults lack access. Reflecting on these principles, WoKidS incorporated participatory elements into its research design, in accordance with the research protocol of the CUWB network (Fattore et al, 2019).

WoKidS employed an iterative and contrasting sampling strategy to capture the high diversity of childhoods in Switzerland. As a result, the study included children from urban and rural areas, with and without a migration background, with and without siblings, with different types of sibling constellations, with and without disabilities, living in various family structures, from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, and so on.

The project consisted of two field phases. In the first phase, children participated in two interviews, choosing to be interviewed individually or with a peer to reduce power asymmetry between the child and the researcher (Heite et al, 2023). In the first interview, children (n = 56) discussed places, objects, hobbies and people that were important to them and drew a drawing about them. Those wishing to participate further joined a second interview (n = 41), where they spoke in greater depth about important people and relationships. Additionally, the participants created an egocentric network map, placing the figures of people (and pets) who were important, more important and the most important to them into respective circles. Following the CUWB network protocol (Fattore et al, 2019), the second field phase involved conducting focus groups (n = 6) with newly recruited children (n = 33). In each focus group, children discussed and created a collage on one of the key themes that emerged from children’s narrations during the first field phase. Subsequently, the material was transcribed, translated if necessary and anonymised.

The data were analysed in line with interpretive (Corbin and Strauss, 2015) and constructivist (Charmaz, 2006) grounded theory methodology (Sebastian, 2019), which was considered suitable due to its primarily inductive character. As Corbin and Strauss (2015: 29) note, ‘the concepts out of which the theory is constructed are derived from data collected during the research process’, enabling the analysis to remain closely aligned with the issues raised by children. The analysis followed a flexible and iterative rather than strictly procedural application of coding stages. Memo writing and the analysis of data extracts carried out in groups with the project team, students and other scholars accompanied the analytical process.

In the initial round of coding, potentially violent sibling conflicts emerged as a significant category in children’s narrations. To explore this category in greater depth, one focus group in the second field phase addressed sibling conflicts. Four boys and one girl, all aged 13, took part in this focus group. All children except one boy had at least one sibling. Including a child without siblings in the focus group on sibling conflicts was not considered a limitation but, rather, consistent with participatory research seeking ‘a diversity of participants and of perspectives’ (Kleine et al, 2016: 8). Participants were recruited from a private school in Switzerland, primarily due to pragmatic accessibility considerations. As a result, children in the focus group likely belong to an upper-middle class socio-economic background. This may be reflected in the study’s findings, as previous research suggests that children’s accounts of the causes and resolution of sibling conflicts vary depending on their socio-economic positioning (Edwards et al, 2006).

This focus group had a particular design. It started with children sharing their own experiences with sibling conflicts. Afterwards, three interview cases from the WoKidS first phase, each illustrating a different aspect of potentially violent sibling conflicts, were selected as case studies for discussion.¹ This approach was chosen to enable a holistic examination of the cases rather than analysing their aspects in isolation. Each case contained a paraphrased interview summary, a selection of children’s drawings depicting siblings and a network map.

With that, the focus group sought to achieve what Stake (1995: 113), referring to Denzin (1984), describes as ‘investigator triangulation’. While Stake (1995) refers to other researchers being involved in investigator triangulation, this focus group aimed to triangulate the researcher’s interpretations of the interviews with those produced by the children during the focus group. A further layer then involved the researcher’s analysis of the children’s interpretations of the interview material during the focus group.

I made a conscious effort to openly formulate questions during the focus group to minimise the researcher’s influence on children’s responses (Charmaz, 2006). Accordingly, I did not introduce the word ‘violence’, nor did the children use it in the focus group discussions. Still, it is crucial to consider that my own positionality as a researcher within the problematising discourse on sibling violence (Rypi, 2023) shaped the data collection and interpretation, as the epistemological stance of constructivist grounded theory stipulates that researchers co-construct rather than discover meaning (Charmaz, 2006; Sebastian, 2019).

This article focuses on the three case studies and the children’s commentary that these case studies provoked in the focus group. The analysis and discussion are structured as follows: each case is introduced through a summary and my interpretation, followed by the children’s responses and my subsequent interpretation of those responses. Popitz’s (2017) power-informed understanding of violence served as a sensitising concept during the analysis. This procedure aligns with the grounded theory methodology, in which sensitising concepts guide interpretation without predetermining the analysis (Charmaz, 2006).

Analysis

Each of the three interview cases presented in the following addresses different aspects of potentially violent sibling conflicts, including provocation, yelling and physical altercations. To make sense of the boundary between non-violent and violent sibling conflicts, children draw on various factors, such as parental involvement, type of communication, age, birth order and socio-geographical discourse.

‘What would I do without my little brother? Where would I vent my anger then?’: the case of Emanuel

Romy and I almost never argue, but when we do argue, there are fists and yelling. Once, the neighbours even came to check. Romy and I tease each other, too. That’s just normal sibling behaviour. My little brother Benjamin gets on my nerves sometimes. And then I beat him up or break something, but I think that’s stupid. I also get angry quickly and am working on that now with Benjamin. When he hits me, I say: ‘Hey, Benjamin, no’. But he knows a trick where he makes me so angry that I go off on him.

When talking about his conflicts with Romy, Emanuel mentions the neighbours who come over to ensure social control and, possibly, help (‘once, the neighbours even came to check’). The neighbours’ visit refers to the severity of the situation (‘there are fists and yelling’) as perceived from the outside. Emanuel uses the word ‘even’ to emphasise this.

Emanuel and Benjamin’s physical actions towards one another resemble the power of action in Popitz’s (2017) sense (‘I beat him up’ or ‘I go off on him’ ‘when he hits me’) and, by definition, hurt their bodily integrity. However, Benjamin seems unbothered by this, as he continues provoking Emanuel (he ‘gets on my nerves’, ‘he knows a trick where he makes me so angry’). Benjamin’s provocations work, and, consequently, it is he who takes control and ultimately power over the whole situation. Such a power position suggests a reversal of intragenerational order between the two brothers. It aligns with Punch’s (2018) findings that power relationships based on birth order can be challenged and transformed situationally. Furthermore, Benjamin offers Emanuel a safe space where Emanuel can practise his ability to exercise emotional control. Emanuel’s relationship with Benjamin remains intact even when Emanuel becomes angry (Winther et al, 2015). Emanuel relies on Benjamin’s acceptance of him despite his anger. In an ambivalent way, Emanuel shares his brother’s importance to him while simultaneously reducing Benjamin to an object (‘What would I do without my little brother? Where would I vent my anger then?’). This relativisation serves as a form of protection for Emanuel, who feels vulnerable when he openly expresses his feelings of attachment and dependence on Benjamin. Finally, aside from hitting, Emanuel’s behaviour of breaking things might also be interpreted as violent: if Emanuel breaks Benjamin’s things, he causes him ‘material harm’, which is one of the forms of power of action (Popitz, 2017: 26; Garrett, 2018: 495). However, it remains analytically open how breaking objects can be conceptualised as violence when the broken objects do not belong to Benjamin.

Nick: He’s fighting with Benjamin, and he should arrange with Benjamin that he can sort it out with words … ² or, differently, with his mum or dad.

Interviewer: Hm [affirmative]. Well, stupid question, but why? [Laughing]

Nick: Why [smiling]? So that nobody is injured….

Julian: Well, if the neighbours come over, I would say that it escalates sometimes a bit. Then, I would maybe look into it with the parents, whether you can do something, a deal.… And I find, also to break something, because afterwards, you maybe also regret it and you can’t, like, undo it anymore or something….

Anna: So, I think it’s a bit exaggerated with the yelling and fists [inaudible]; that is a bit too, too bad….

Nick: Aren’t the parents at home here?… Because if the neighbours come over, then most of the time the parents aren’t at home, because also they can’t stop them either….

Leo: He exaggerated a bit with the yelling, but – and with breaking, yes – but that happens sometimes. Well, in [another country], where I had lived before, and there….

Nick shares his preference for verbal instead of physical communication (‘sort it out with words’), as he perceives the interaction as physically harmful (‘so that nobody is injured’). Similarly, in Corsaro’s (2003) study, some adults emphasise the importance of resolving disagreements through discussion rather than physical or verbal disputes. Nick’s second recommended strategy is to involve parents. This aligns with the findings of Edwards et al (2005), who note that some children seek parental help in managing sibling conflicts. Additionally, such a strategy reveals Nick’s expectations for the parental role: to get involved in sibling conflicts to prevent harm. This also aligns with practitioners’ views in Rypi’s (2023) research. Nick asks whether Emanuel’s parents are not at home, as if they are and let this happen, they would be neglecting their parental obligations. Nick’s wish for the parents to get involved is an indicator that the boundary to violence is being crossed.

Julian’s assessment of the situation is oriented towards adult reactions from outside of the family (‘if the neighbours come over’). Following Nick’s notion, Julian suggests that Emanuel could arrange a ‘deal’ with his parents and siblings. This refers to the authoritative parenting style where children are involved in negotiation, as opposed to, for example, the authoritarian style where children are told what to do (Reichenbach, 2011). Furthermore, Julian brings up the aspect of Emanuel breaking things, hinting that this strategy of momentary emotional release is not fruitful because ‘you can’t undo’ the breaking of objects and may later ‘regret’ it.

Furthermore, Anna addresses the overstepping of the boundary with Emanuel’s physical fighting (‘fists’) and yelling: ‘it’s a bit too, too bad’, a ‘bit exaggerated’. She repeats the word ‘bad’ twice; however, she also relativises her response by adding ‘a bit’ to it. Julian also uses relativisation, which makes his argument sound almost contradictory (‘it escalates sometimes a bit’). Such phrasing suggests that while Anna and Julian attempt to downplay the situation, both parties believe it has crossed a boundary.

While Leo, the only participant without siblings, does not directly comment on Emanuel’s physical fighting, he is the only one to cautiously normalise Emanuel’s yelling and breaking things. Although Leo states that Emanuel ‘exaggerated a bit with the yelling’ and ‘with breaking’ (thereby using relativisation similar to Anna and Julian), he also mentions that ‘that happens sometimes’. Leo’s further reference to the country where he had previously lived suggests that this normalisation is dependent on a discourse in a particular socio-geographical space. This aligns with Heitmeyer and Hagan’s (2003) notion that the boundaries of violence are dependent on the current discourse.

The children’s verbal assessments (describing the whole situation as ‘too bad’), reference to the adults from the outside coming to check, the children’s suggestions to revert to verbal communication instead of engaging in physical conflict, their expectations of parental involvement and the proposal to negotiate a ‘deal’ with siblings under parental guidance all suggest the children’s understanding that a boundary to violence is being crossed in Emanuel’s situation. In contrast, Leo’s commentary, connected with a particular socio-geographical discourse, normalises some of Emanuel’s actions.

‘He yells at me, and I can’t stop it’: the case of Lera

My brother doesn’t love me at all. He’s often just angry and yells everything at me. For example, I’m cutting paper, then he comes and says, ‘You’re doing everything wrong; you’re cutting it wrong’. He doesn’t correct me either but comes home and says, ‘It’s all Lera’s fault’. I try to answer somehow, but he is older; he’ll finish me off in two seconds.

Lera shares how her brother verbally displaces his anger onto her (he is ‘often just angry and yells everything at me’), which leads her to feel unloved by him. Such behaviour appears to serve as a means of emotional regulation for the brother, who channels his accumulated anger towards Lera. This dynamic resembles the sibling ‘backstage’ behaviour investigated by Punch (2008). Additionally, the brother’s actions can be seen as an expression of power of action (Popitz, 2017). While they do not directly compromise Lera’s physical integrity, financial situation or inclusion in social relationships (Popitz, 2017), they humiliate Lera (Honneth, 1990) and thereby undermine her emotional integrity. Lera describes efforts to respond to her brother’s actions (‘I try to answer somehow’). Simultaneously, she verbalises the limits of her capacity to protect herself due to being younger than her brother, uncovering an intragenerational power imbalance (Punch, 2018). Additionally, Lera mentions during the interview that the strategy of involving a parent (the mother) to stop the brother’s yelling does not prove to be successful either, revealing a reversed intergenerational order between the mother and the child.

Nick: I think that Lera is afraid of her brother. And she does like him, but he makes her not like him anymore. He yells, and she does everything wrong…. If she can’t do it, you can. He can show her….

Julian: Well, I find it actually a bit shocking that a sister is afraid of her own brother. That is now not so….

Gabriel: Well, if someone is really afraid of their siblings, I would look into it with the parents there….

Julian: She wants her brother to be happy, and he still beats her up, like, she’s still afraid of him….

Nick: Well, I would take a closer look at the parents here because they’re not doing anything against it. And if the parents aren’t there now, it’s also not so good for her, because she’s being terrorised by her brother…. Do you also have an interview about her brother?…

Julian: It’s so frightening.

Nick, again, seems to be dominant in this sequence. He sets the tone for the discussion by mentioning that Lera appears to be ‘afraid’ of her brother. This interpretation did not emerge in the (group) analysis conducted by adult researchers and constitutes a new insight. Other children follow Nick’s notion. The descriptions escalate: from Lera being ‘afraid’ and ‘still afraid’ (Julian) to ‘really afraid’ (Gabriel), then ‘terrorised’ (Nick), and back down to it all being ‘frightening’ (Julian). This can be seen as a description of escalation towards violence, with ‘being terrorised’ expressing violence as the end stop.

Julian addresses the unequal position in this sibling relationship. He notes that Lera wishes her brother ‘to be happy’, as she drew him as happy on the right side of the picture, but he ‘still beats her up’. By saying so, Julian metaphorically compares being angrily yelled at with getting physically hurt. Here, Julian perceives yelling as emotional harm that has the same effect as a physical injury.

It is Gabriel who this time brings the strategy of involving parents into the discussion, revealing, once more, the children’s expectations of parental involvement. Nick supports this idea and calls Lera’s parents out for failing their parental obligations (‘they’re not doing anything against it’).

Furthermore, Nick recognises the potential of this situation to serve as a pedagogical moment for Lera (‘he can show her’ how to cut the paper). However, according to the interview with Lera, the brother does not do that, and Nick tries to seek an explanation for that (‘Do you also have an interview about her brother?’).

Children in the focus group describe Lera’s interactions with her brother as ‘terrorising’. They equate being yelled at with being physically ‘beaten up’, thereby conceptualising the brother’s displaced anger as an emotional harm he causes Lera. Consequently, children emphasise the importance of involving parents in this situation to protect Lera from getting hurt.

‘She still likes me when we fight’: the case of Mai and Lara

Mai (8) has a younger sister, Lara (5). In her drawing, Mai depicted her room and included her parents, Lara and herself in the bottom-right corner, with the words ‘My world’ written in the centre of the picture. On the network map, Mai placed Lara in the circle of the most important people. Although Mai was initially supposed to participate in the interviews alone, Lara was present during some parts of the interviews, which took place at the girls’ home. Mai agreed to Lara’s participation.

Mai: Lara is very important to me.

Lara: Mai is also very important to me. She sometimes hurts me, and we sometimes fight.

Mai: But Lara still likes me when we fight. We fight when Lara steals something from me that I don’t want. If she then wants to hit me, I hold out my arm, which is already injured. And then I don’t mind because then only one arm is injured and the other is still whole. Every now and then, I hit her back. I always win.

The relationship between Mai and Lara is characterised by ambivalent dynamics (Davies, 2015). Mai remains important to Lara, even as she hurts her and they fight. In turn, Mai also emphasises the connection in her relationship with Lara despite conflicts (‘Lara still likes me when we fight’) (Winther et al, 2015), which also suggests that Mai generally views sibling conflicts negatively.

According to Mai, the reason for their conflicts is Lara crossing Mai’s boundaries (‘when Lara steals something from me that I don’t want’). Further, Mai shares her strategy of minimising damage when Lara hits her: to let only one arm get injured, while ‘the other is still whole’. In doing so, Mai partially stays in control of the situation (‘then I don’t mind’). She finishes the sequence by bringing back her power position within the intragenerational order with Lara (‘I always win’) (Punch, 2018).

Both Mai’s and Lara’s activities can be viewed as a power of action (Popitz, 2017). Even if it is not clear how exactly Mai hurts Lara (‘she sometimes hurts me’), the word ‘hurt’ alone contains the dimension of inflicting harm. Furthermore, Lara’s actions towards Mai damage Mai’s bodily integrity (‘if she then wants to hit me’, causing an ‘injured’ arm).

Julian: Well, I think it’s less serious than the other stories. But I would still put another arm … so that the other one can heal…. But otherwise, I think it’s actually OK….

Nick: If the arm is so injured, I don’t think it’s so good anymore. I would involve the father or mother….

Julian: I would find it worse if the older one hits the younger one, but if the younger one hits the older one, it’s a bit better, well, yes, not better, but it’s not worse either, because then the older one doesn’t bully the younger one….

Interviewer: Why is that?…

Gabriel: Yes, the older ones are stronger….

Nick: Well, for example, my friend also has a younger sister and she also sometimes annoys him with hitting, and my friend also says ‘stop’ sometimes, and I would just compare this … and the older one also argues with her, and if the younger one is like this now, it’s just her own fault if she gets hurt, because with my friend, it is also like this, if she annoys him to that extent or something, she has to bear the consequences….

Anna: Well, yes, when the younger ones hit, well, better not to hit at all, but, like, yeah, she is now only five, well, I think she doesn’t hit very hard. But if they get older and still beat one another up, then it will not be good anymore….

Interviewer: Until when is it OK, then, so to speak?

Anna: So, 11–12….

Nick: I think it depends on age whether you argue a lot or less….

Julian: You learn to control, to control the body. Right?…

Nick: And you don’t have that much time for fighting … or sometimes fighting is just unnecessary….

Julian: Well, you also become much more reasonable with age. You know then that you maybe shouldn’t hit back anymore, or something like that.

Gabriel: Yeah, you maybe don’t let yourself, you know, get provoked so fast anymore.

Here, children discuss the boundaries of acceptable behaviour revolving around sibling hitting. They explore the complexity of the case by contextualising the situation. Julian argues that it is more acceptable (‘not better, but it’s not worse either’) for Lara to hit Mai because Lara is younger. In verbalising this, Julian connects the question of normality around sibling hitting with sibling birth-order position (Punch, 2018). Nick disagrees with excusing Lara’s act due to her being younger (‘I don’t think it’s so good anymore’) because Mai’s arm is injured – the harm is done. Nick, sensitive to issues of inequality due to personal experience with his older sister, argues for the importance of the consequences for one’s undesirable behaviour, regardless of birth-order position. In this way, he hints that the consequences of certain actions can serve as a pedagogical moment. Nick again appeals to involving parents in this situation, which leads to his understanding that this conflict crosses the boundary into violence and should be prevented.

Anna builds on Julian’s comment about birth-order position but emphasises the role of age in discussing the matter. She connects age with (not) having particular abilities. This aligns with Brock’s (2020) notion that the ability to manage conflicts and find compromises is also linked to age and the development of cognitive capacities. Furthermore, it is in line with Davies’s (2015) claim that children’s boundaries around physical interactions at home are more flexible and accommodating of children’s age and experience. According to Anna, because Lara is young, she does not ‘hit very hard’. She thereby cannot substantially hurt Mai, even when the intention is there. The actual damage plays a greater role for Anna than the intention to hit. After being prompted, she even places a normative age boundary when hitting starts being inappropriate (from ‘11–12’ years old).

Other children discuss Anna’s idea of the age boundary further, stating that siblings argue less as they get older. They name several reasons for this, which revolve around acquiring social norms (‘you know’ that you ‘shouldn’t hit back anymore’), gaining the ability of self-control (‘you learn to control’ the body, and you ‘don’t let yourself’ ‘get provoked so fast anymore’) and navigating structural limitations (‘you don’t have that much time for fighting’).

Children in the focus group express split opinions on whether Lara’s physical behaviour towards Mai is acceptable. Nick interprets Lara’s actions as harmful and hence unacceptable, regardless of Lara’s birth-order position, and calls again for involving parents in the situation. Anna and Julian relativise Lara’s actions by emphasising her young age and her birth-order position as the younger sibling. Anna elaborates that Lara is not yet capable of causing serious harm when hitting as she is so young. Such a difference in perspectives highlights that children’s understanding of what constitutes a boundary-crossing act is shaped by individual interpretations of contextual factors.

Discussion and conclusion

Sibling conflicts are a big part of children’s sibling relationships. Since they sometimes involve physical and emotional aspects (Punch, 2008; Davies, 2015), questions arise as to when such conflicts turn violent. Children’s perspectives as informants about their own lives have become increasingly studied in social science research (Christensen and James, 2008). However, there remains a research gap regarding children’s views on when sibling conflicts become violent. This article addresses this gap by asking: how do children perceive the boundary between non-violent and violent sibling conflicts? Here, a boundary is understood as a conceptual distinction created and continuously reproduced by social actors for categorisation purposes (Lamont and Molnár, 2002).

The article discusses three case studies from the WoKidS project (2021–25). These three cases were selected for discussion because they involved potentially violent sibling conflicts. During the analysis, I employed Popitz’s (2017) power-informed understanding of violence as a sensitising concept. According to Popitz (2017), violence is a ‘form of the power of action’ that manifests itself in bodily, economic or social harm (Garrett, 2018: 495). Building on this understanding, I proposed an analytical extension of the power of action by adding to this list the violation of emotional integrity, which can appear as, for example, insults or humiliation (Honneth, 1990). Based on this theoretical lens, I argue that, in all three cases, children exercised the power of action towards their siblings, resulting in bodily and emotional harm and thus containing a violent character.

The cases were then discussed by newly recruited children in a focus group. The children did not always share a consensus on conceptualising the cases under discussion as violent. On the one hand, they did construct presented conflicts as physically or emotionally hurtful and therefore as boundary crossing. In Emanuel’s case, Nick noted that fighting with Benjamin (‘beating Benjamin up’ or ‘going off on’ him) led to injury and hence to bodily harm. In Lera’s case, Julian compared Lera being angrily yelled at by her brother with being physically beaten up, emphasising the emotional harm done. Finally, in Mai and Lara’s case, Nick claimed the situation was physically harmful because Mai’s arm got injured.

Children voiced that the conflicts should be stopped and suggested various strategies to avoid getting hurt, which also refers to children’s understanding that the boundary to violence is being crossed. The strategies included reverting to verbal rather than physical communication, involving parents and negotiating a ‘deal’ with siblings under parental guidance. These strategies align with some literature. For example, Edwards et al (2005) also note that some children turn to their parents for help when dealing with sibling conflicts. Furthermore, some parents in Corsaro’s (2003) study similarly emphasised the importance of resolving conflicts through discussion rather than physical or verbal disputes.

On the other hand, some children in the focus group relativised certain actions described in the interviews by contextualising the situations. First, one child referred to specific socio-geographical discourse on normality. Leo claimed that Emanuel’s yelling and breaking things was ‘exaggerated a bit’ but that that ‘happens sometimes’, for example, in the country where he lived before. This aligns with the conceptualisations of violence as not having ‘objective and universal properties’ (Rypi, 2023: 213) or of boundaries to violence as being ‘dependent on the prevailing discourse’ (Heitmeyer and Hagan, 2003: 4). Second, children referred to age and birth-order position when relativising the described situations. Julian claimed he ‘would find it worse if the older’ sibling ‘hits the younger one’. Children downplayed the severity of physical acts committed by younger siblings due to age-related limitations in their ability to cause harm. Anna argued that young siblings could not ‘hit very hard’ and hence could not cause substantial physical harm, despite the possible intention to do so. Brock (2020) similarly notes that children’s ability to manage conflicts depends on their age and the development of cognitive capacities. Furthermore, Davies (2015) argues that, within the home environment, children’s boundaries regarding physical interactions are more accommodating of their age and experience. To summarise, children’s conceptualisations of the boundary of sibling violence in the present study were heterogeneous, mirroring the broader conceptual fluidity of the term, with children providing additional interpretative insights during data analysis.

Since the conceptualisation of the boundary of violence is influenced by discourse (Heitmeyer and Hagan, 2003) and childhood generally is constructed differently across social, cultural and political contexts (Heite, 2023), it is worth briefly considering the context in which the study was conducted. With regard to violence, the Swiss national context has been shaped in recent years by debates over a violence-free upbringing. Children’s right to a violence-free upbringing is incorporated into the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB/CC) from July 2026 (Bundesamt für Justiz, 2026). In comparison, in Austria, the relevant law was enacted in the General Civil Code (ABGB) in 1989,³ and in Germany, it was stipulated in the German Civil Code (BGB) in 2000 (Galm et al, 2009). In England and Northern Ireland, a parent or carer is permitted to physically discipline a child within the bounds of ‘reasonable punishment’; in Scotland, the defence of reasonable punishment was abolished in 2020, and Wales followed suit in 2022 (Rowland et al, 2025: 2).

Additionally, the findings invite further reflection on the following aspects. First, the article addresses the question of which actors are expected to intervene in potentially harmful sibling conflicts. The concept of the familialisation of childhood emphasises that children are the responsibility of their parents (Edwards et al, 2006). This familialisation is also reflected in children’s voices, as parental involvement in sibling conflicts emerged as a recurring expectation among children during the focus group discussions.

In this context, children’s discussions raise issues regarding the necessity, obligation and appropriate extent of adult (specifically, parental) involvement in potentially violent sibling conflicts. According to Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), children have the right to be protected from all forms of violence. Bossek (2025) similarly discusses children’s right to a violence-free upbringing, as stipulated in the German Civil Code (BGB), and questions whether this right also implies a parental duty to protect children from physical harm caused by siblings. Additionally, some research emphasises adults’ responsibility for preventing sibling conflicts (Rypi, 2023) or highlights negative experiences when adults fail to acknowledge sibling violence or to act against it (Elliott et al, 2020). Furthermore, the question of intervention is closely linked with the understanding of sibling violence. For example, Rypi’s (2023) study highlights how the lack of a commonly accepted term for sibling violence in professional practice leads to it being overlooked by being framed as sibling conflicts.

Another aspect concerns the timing of intervention in potentially violent sibling conflicts. This addresses the tension between conceptualising children, on the one hand, as a vulnerable group situated within the generational order and in need of protection (Alanen, 2009; Heite, 2023) and, on the other, as ‘subjects with rights and agency’ (Heite, 2023: 17). When discussing children’s conflicts more broadly, Corsaro (2003) warns against overprotecting children or underestimating their abilities. Dittrich et al (2001: 230) further argue that the ‘pain threshold’ for intervention into children’s conflicts differs among practitioners and emphasise the importance of self-reflection on one’s feelings in practice, including through supervision and case discussions.

This article has demonstrated the nuanced ways in which children conceptualise the boundary between non-violent and violent sibling conflicts, highlighting the importance of actively engaging children in research. Given that ‘sibling violence’ remains a discursive term marked by the absence of commonly accepted conceptualisations, this article calls for further discussion of sibling violence across scientific, public and practice discourses, both nationally and internationally, and argues for the systematic inclusion of children’s perspectives in this process.