Sibling teaching provides an important context for children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in families with more than one child. Within the Chinese family context shaped by the two-child policy, older siblings often assume instructional roles. However, limited research has examined how children’s theory of mind and sibling relationship quality jointly influence instructional behaviors and learning engagement during sibling teaching interactions. This study aimed to address this gap by examining these associations across different instructional task types.
Thirty-four sibling dyads from Chinese two-child families participated in structured teaching tasks, including mathematical/spatial and language activities. Firstborn children (aged 6–12 years) acted as instructors, while second-born children (aged 3–6 years) acted as learners. Children’s theory of mind was assessed using standardized tasks, and sibling relationship quality was reported by parents. Teaching and learning behaviors were coded from video-recorded interactions using an established observational coding system. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine predictive relationships.
Results showed that instructors’ theory of mind positively predicted the use of cognitive strategies and positive feedback across both mathematical/spatial and language teaching tasks. Learners’ Theory of Mind was negatively associated with off-task behavior in both task types and with refusal behavior in language teaching tasks. Sibling relationship quality positively predicted instructors’ cognitive strategies and learners’ verbal and physical engagement, with stronger effects observed in mathematical/spatial teaching tasks.
These findings highlight the joint roles of social–cognitive development and sibling relationship quality in shaping sibling teaching interactions. By distinguishing between task types and examining both instructor and learner behaviors, the study extends existing theories of sibling teaching and underscores the importance of family-based learning processes within a Chinese cultural context.
Children living in a family environment with at least two children have more opportunities to promote each other’s cognitive development (
With the comprehensive promotion of China’s two-child policy, more and more families are having a second child, leading to an increase in multi-child families, which is becoming an increasingly common family structure in China (
Theory of mind is the ability to understand and explain human behavior and social situations, and to be aware of and comprehend the potential mental states of others, such as knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, desires, and intentions (
Theory of Mind plays a critical role in children’s understanding of others’ mental states and social behaviors (
The term “sibling relationship” refers to all interactions between brothers and sisters in which they share knowledge, perspectives, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings related to each other. These interactions are characterized by equality, reciprocity, and complementarity (
Previous research has confirmed the impact of sibling relationship quality on the behavior of both educators and learners. According to
Beyond examining the applicability of prior findings in a Chinese context, the present study seeks to refine theoretical understanding of sibling teaching by distinguishing between different types of teaching behaviors and by examining whether the roles of theory of mind and sibling relationship quality vary across instructional tasks. Importantly, the Chinese family context, characterized by stronger hierarchical sibling roles and greater emphasis on intra-family teaching, provides a theoretically meaningful context to examine whether and how established social–cognitive mechanisms of sibling teaching operate under different cultural expectations. The present study makes several contributions to the literature on sibling teaching and social–cognitive development. First, extending prior research that has predominantly focused on mathematical or spatial problem-solving tasks, this study incorporates a language teaching task, thereby broadening the scope of sibling teaching research to include verbal instructional contexts. Second, the language teaching task is based on Chinese character learning, which differs fundamentally from alphabetic systems and involves distinct cognitive and instructional demands. This allows for a more culturally grounded examination of teaching and learning processes within Chinese families. Third, by comparing mathematical/spatial and language teaching tasks, this study demonstrates that the roles of children’s theory of mind and sibling relationship quality vary across instructional contexts, highlighting task type as an important boundary condition in sibling teaching processes. Together, these contributions move beyond simple cultural replication and provide a more differentiated understanding of how social–cognitive and relational factors jointly shape sibling teaching behaviors in Chinese two-child families.
A random sample of 34 families with two children was selected for the present study. Families were recruited through kindergartens and primary schools in several cities in China, using convenience sampling. Eligible families who expressed interest were included in the recruitment pool, and sibling dyads meeting the age criteria were then randomly selected from this pool to participate in the study. Among these families, 6 pairs of siblings were from Chengdu, Sichuan Province; 5 pairs from Nanchong, Sichuan Province; 5 pairs from Chongqing; and the remaining 18 pairs from Dazhou, Sichuan Province. A total of 68 children participated in the study (31 boys and 37 girls). In this study, firstborn children (
The age ranges were selected to reflect typical instructor–learner roles in sibling teaching contexts. Firstborn children aged 6–12 years generally possess more advanced cognitive and communicative abilities, enabling them to assume instructional roles, whereas second-born children aged 3–6 years are at a developmental stage where guided learning from older siblings is common. This age configuration is consistent with prior sibling teaching research.
During the experimental study, each family served as a unit, and the experiment was conducted a total of 34 times (visiting 34 families). In each family’s experimental study, the experimental content of Study 2 was conducted first, followed by the experimental content of Study 1. The general procedure is as follows: First, the “Sibling Relationship Questionnaire for Chinese Preschool Children (Parental Version)” was provided to the parents of the two children, who were asked to fill out the questionnaire. Meanwhile, both children underwent separate cognitive theory tests. After completing the cognitive theory tests, and following a brief rest, the firstborn child was taken aside to familiarize themselves with the teaching materials and process. Once the firstborn child was prepared, the firstborn child and the second-born child engaged in a sibling teaching activity, starting with a verbal teaching activity followed by a math/spatial teaching activity. The entire process of the sibling teaching activity was recorded. The researcher then coded the behaviors of the educator and learner for subsequent data statistical analysis.
The materials used for sibling teaching activities were divided into math/spatial teaching materials and verbal teaching materials. Based on experiences from foreign research methodologies and the “Guidelines for Children’s Learning and Development (Ages 3–6),” LEGO was selected as the teaching material for math/spatial knowledge in this study. The researcher conducted surveys in several kindergartens, drawing on the experiences of frontline kindergarten teachers. Larger LEGO pieces were chosen as they are suitable for 3–6-year-old children to grasp and assemble. The goal tasks for assembling LEGO were set as simple and complex teaching tasks. Under the guidance of the firstborn child, the second-born child assembled LEGO according to the instructions provided in the given images. Details of the target images for simple and complex teaching tasks can be found in
The verbal teaching activities in this study mainly utilized the “Game-based Literacy Method.” The design of the teaching materials was based on the “Guidelines for Children’s Learning and Development (Ages 3–6)” and incorporated the results of the researcher’s surveys in several kindergartens, drawing on the experiences of frontline kindergarten teachers. This was combined with some children’s word game books to design simple and complex tasks for verbal knowledge suitable for the children’s zone of proximal development. Under the guidance of the firstborn child, the second-born child matched the pictures with the corresponding Chinese character cards. The goal of the simple teaching task was to match the Chinese character cards with the corresponding pictures. The goal of the complex teaching task was to match the Chinese character cards, the idiom and the ancient poems with the corresponding pictures. Details of the simple and complex teaching tasks are provided in
The mathematical/spatial and language tasks were designed to be age-appropriate and flexible in difficulty, allowing instructors to adjust their teaching strategies according to the learner’s level. The use of two task domains also enabled examination of whether instructional behaviors varied across different learning contexts. The behaviors of the instructor and learner during the sibling teaching process were recorded using a video camera, and these behaviors were later classified and coded. Based on the coding and specific definitions of the behaviors of instructors and learners by Instructor behavior coding standards. Providing prompts or clues to guide learners: The instructor offers hints, prompts, or cues to help learners navigate the task or problem. Motivating, guiding, or instructing learners to work independently: The instructor encourages learners to take ownership of their learning, providing guidance and support as needed while fostering independent problem-solving skills. Offering explanations to learners: The instructor provides explanations, clarifications, or demonstrations to enhance learners’ understanding of concepts, procedures, or strategies. Providing instructions for learners to continue with the task: The instructor offers instructions or prompts for learners to proceed with the task, ensuring a smooth progression and facilitating their ongoing engagement and learning. The instructor narrates their own actions during the teaching process or solely provides instructions on how to complete the task, while the learners observe without actively participating. The instructor reads the text from the instructional materials without considering whether the learners have understood or mastered the content. The learners passively observe while the instructor reads. The instructor provides positive feedback, encouragement, or praise in an appreciative or neutral tone. For example, the instructor might say, “Yes, that’s correct!” or “You did a great job!” The instructor utilizes specific physical actions to express praise and encouragement, such as clapping hands or giving a thumbs-up gesture. The instructor identifies and corrects learners’ errors in a dictatorial or impatient tone or forcibly compels learners to engage in the instructional activity. For example, the instructor may shout at the learners, “You’re so stupid!” or “I told you to hurry up!” The instructor resorts to aggressive physical actions to correct or restrain learners, even resorting to physically attacking them. The instructor becomes distracted by external irrelevant stimuli, such as engaging in conversations with researchers or getting involved in activities unrelated to the teaching task. The instructor solely focuses on completing their own tasks without engaging in communication with the learners or paying attention to them, completely disregarding the original intention of “teaching.” Learner behavior coding standards Learners engage in verbal imitation. Learners respond to the instructor’s questions or narrate learning content as per the instructor’s instructions. Learners seek guidance from the instructor when facing difficulties. Learners display an authoritarian or impatient tone when interacting with the instructor. Learners become angry or physically aggressive towards the instructor. Learners engage in conflicts with the instructor over the possession or control of instructional materials during the teaching process. Learners refuse the instructor’s attempt to impart knowledge to them and express their refusal verbally, for example, telling the instructor, “No, I do not need you to teach me, I can do it myself!” Learners physically demonstrate their refusal, such as pushing the instructor’s hand aside.
Physical demonstrations
The instructor demonstrates the operation of teaching aids, such as sequentially showcasing them to the learners or personally demonstrating how to place or assemble a LEGO piece. The learners observe the demonstration without actively participating.
Cognitive strategies
The instructor adopts a learner-centered approach, allowing learners to engage in hands-on activities while providing scaffolded instruction. The instructor follows a scaffolded teaching model that involves the following:
Descriptions
Positive feedback
Control/Negative feedback
Off task
Verbal expression
Physical expression
Learners manipulate instructional materials under the guidance of the instructor or independently.
Positive feedback
Learners actively respond to the instructor, express appreciation, or comply with instructions. For example, learners may say phrases like “That’s right” or “Okay!” to show their agreement or willingness to follow the instructions.
Control/Negative feedback
Refusal
Off -task
Learners become distracted by external irrelevant stimuli, such as engaging in conversations with researchers or completely disregarding the instructor’s instructions and focusing on manipulating instructional materials on their own.
Ethical review and approval was not required for this study in accordance with local legislation and institutional requirements. The study involved non-invasive, minimal-risk observational procedures conducted in familiar and naturalistic settings. Parents or legal guardians were fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study prior to participation and provided verbal consent for their children’s participation and video recording. Video recordings were used solely for behavioral coding and analysis, were anonymized during data processing, and were not intended for public sharing.
The specific questions for testing the theory of mind of the two children are detailed in
Belief-desire reasoning task:
The experimental materials were adapted from the research paradigm of
Understanding Blunders Task:
Based on the blunder recognition task paradigm designed by
Secondly, the test tool for assessing the theory of mind of the secondborn child consists of three tasks, with a final score ranging from 0 to 6 points.
Unexpected Location Task:
This task uses the Sally-Anne test developed by
Unexpected Content Task:
This task uses content adapted by
Appearance-Reality Distinction Task:
This task uses content adapted by
The Sibling Relationship Questionnaire for Chinese Preschool Children (Parental Version) was developed by
Specifically, the Sibling Intimacy dimension measures the level of warmth between siblings, for example, “Dabao will protect his/her younger brother/sister when they are afraid.” The Sibling Acceptance dimension assesses the degree of acceptance Dabao shows toward his/her younger brother/sister, for example, “Dabao will show off his brother/sister to others.” The Sibling Rivalry dimension primarily reflects the level of conflicts between siblings, for example, “Dabao gets angry when his brother/sister breaks his things.” The Sibling Interaction dimension focuses on the interaction between siblings, for example, “Dabao and his brother/sister tell each other their little secrets.” Each item in the questionnaire is scored on a 5-point scale: 1 = Never happens, 2 = Rarely happens, 3 = Sometimes happens, 4 = Frequently happens, 5 = Always happens. Items 3, 7, 10, 13, and 17 are reverse scored. Please refer to
Statistical software SPSS 25.0 was used for data management and statistical analysis.
The instructor’s behaviors encompass six categories. However, based on the actual conditions of the experiment, the instructors rarely engage in off-task behaviors related to teaching. Therefore, the encoded instructor behaviors for analysis consist of five categories: physical demonstration, cognitive strategies, description, positive feedback, and negative feedback. Two coders coded the instructor’s behaviors and calculated their frequencies. Subsequently, the internal consistency of the coding was computed, resulting in:
First, in simple mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for physical demonstration is 0.91, for description is 0.90, for cognitive strategies is 0.88, for positive feedback is 1.00, and for negative feedback is 1.00. Second, in complex mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for physical demonstration is 0.91, for description is 0.93, for cognitive strategies is 0.88, for positive feedback is 1.00, and for negative feedback is 1.00. Third, in simple language teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for physical demonstration is 0.97, for description is 0.96, for cognitive strategies is 0.91, for positive feedback is 1.00, and for negative feedback is 1.00. Fourth, in complex language teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for physical demonstration is 0.97, for description is 0.93, for cognitive strategies is 0.88, for positive feedback is 1.00, and for negative feedback is 1.00.
The behaviors of the learners can be categorized into six types: verbal expression, physical expression, refusal, positive feedback, negative feedback, and off-task behavior. Two coders were responsible for coding the learners’ behaviors, and their frequencies were calculated. Subsequently, the internal consistency of the coding was assessed, resulting in the following outcomes:
First, in simple mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for verbal expression is 0.94, for physical expression is 0.90, for refusal is 1.00, for positive feedback is 1.00, for negative feedback is 1.00, and for off-task behavior is 0.95. Second, in complex mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for verbal expression is 0.94, for physical expression is 0.85, for refusal is 1.00, for positive feedback is 1.00, for negative feedback is 1.00, and for off-task behavior is 0.95. Third, in simple language teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for verbal expression is 0.97, for physical expression is 0.97, for refusal is 1.00, for positive feedback is 1.00, for negative feedback is 1.00, and for off-task behavior is 1.00. Fourth, in complex language teaching tasks, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient for verbal expression is 0.91, for physical expression is 0.97, for refusal is 1.00, for positive feedback is 1.00, for negative feedback is 1.00, and for off-task behavior is 0.95.
In the math/spatial teaching task and the language teaching task, Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between the theory of mind (TOM) scores of the instructors and their five types of behavior. The results are presented in
Correlation between instructor’s theory of mind and behavior.
| Task type | Predictor | Physical demonstration | Description | Cognitive strategy | Positive feedback | Negative feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | TOM | −0.21 | 0.02 | 0.70*** | 0.55** | −0.29 |
| Language | TOM | 0.07 | −0.12 | 0.66*** | 0.41* | −0.22 |
* indicates
In the math/spatial teaching task and the language teaching task, the behaviors of the instructor that were significantly correlated with their theory of mind test scores were entered into regression equations. In the math/spatial teaching task, Theory of Mind of the instructor was entered as the predictor variable, and their cognitive strategies and positive feedback were the dependent variables. In the language teaching task, Theory of Mind of the instructor was entered as the predictor variable, and their cognitive strategies and positive feedback were the dependent variables. The results obtained from multiple linear regression analyses are presented in
Predictive role of theory of mind on instructor’s behavior.
| Task type | Predictor variable | Dependent variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math tasks | TOM | Cognitive strategy | 0.70 | 5.46*** | 0.48 | 29.84*** |
| TOM | Positive feedback | 0.55 | 3.73** | 0.30 | 13.89** | |
| Language tasks | TOM | Cognitive strategy | 0.66 | 4.96*** | 0.44 | 24.61*** |
| TOM | Positive feedback | 0.41 | 2.53* | 0.17 | 6.41* |
* indicates
First, in the math/spatial teaching task, Theory of Mind of the instructor accounted for 48% of the variance in cognitive strategies (
Second, in the language teaching task, Theory of Mind of the instructor accounted for 44% of the variance in cognitive strategies (
In the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks and language teaching tasks, Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between learners’ scores on the theory of mind test and their 6 behaviors. The results are presented in
Correlation between learner’s theory of mind and behavior.
| Task type | Predictor | Verbal expression | Physical expression | Refusal | Positive feedback | Negative feedback | Off-task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | TOM | −0.14 | −0.07 | 0.00 | −0.21 | 0.05 | −0.67*** |
| Language | TOM | −0.23 | −0.17 | −0.34 | −0.31 | −0.12 | −0.49** |
* indicates
In the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks and language teaching tasks, the learner behaviors that were found to have a correlation with the learner’s theory of mind test scores were entered into regression equations. In the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks, the learner’s theory of mind was used as the predictor variable, and off-task behavior was used as the dependent variable. In the language teaching tasks, the learner’s theory of mind was used as the predictor variable, and refusal behavior and off-task behavior were used as the dependent variables. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted, and the results are presented in
Predictive effects of learner’s theory of mind on their behavior.
| Task type | Predictor variable | Dependent variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | TOM | Off-task | −0.67 | −5.06*** | 0.44 | 25.55*** |
| Language | TOM | Off-task | −0.49 | −3.14** | 0.24 | 9.86** |
* indicates
First, in the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks, the learner’s theory of mind accounted for 44% of the variance in off-task behavior,
Second, in the language teaching tasks, the learner’s theory of mind accounted for 24% of the variance in off-task behavior,
In the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks and language teaching tasks, the scores obtained from the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire were correlated with the instructor’s five behaviors using Pearson correlation analysis. The results are shown in
Correlation between sibling relationship quality and instructor’s behavior.
| Task type | Predictor | Physical demonstration | Description | Cognitive strategy | Positive feedback | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | SRQ | −0.13 | −0.12 | 0.51** | 0.23 | −0.37* |
| Language | SRQ | −0.18 | −0.23 | 0.37* | 0.05 | −0.30 |
In the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks, sibling relationship quality (SRQ) was significantly positively correlated with the instructor’s cognitive strategies (
In the mathematical/spatial teaching task and the language teaching task, instructor behaviors that are correlated with sibling relationship quality were included in the regression equation. In the mathematical/spatial teaching task, sibling relationship quality was used as the predictor variable, and the instructor’s cognitive strategies and negative feedback were the dependent variables. In the language teaching task, sibling relationship quality was used as the predictor variable, and the instructor’s cognitive strategies were the dependent variable. The results obtained from multiple linear regression analysis are presented in
Predictive effects of sibling relationship quality on instructor’s behavior.
| Task type | Predictor variable | Dependent variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | SRQ | Cognitive strategy | 0.51 | 3.38** | 0.26 | 11.39** |
| SRQ | Positive feedback | −0.37 | −2.22* | 0.13 | 4.93* | |
| Language | SRQ | Cognitive strategy | 0.37 | 2.25* | 0.14 | 5.05* |
First, in the mathematical/spatial teaching task, the predictor variable of sibling relationship quality accounted for 26% of the variance in cognitive strategies (
Second, in the language teaching task, the predictor variable of sibling relationship quality accounted for 14% of the variance in cognitive strategies (
In the math/spatial teaching task and the language teaching task, the scores of the Sibling Relationship Quality questionnaire were correlated with the learner’s behaviors using Pearson correlation analysis. The results are shown in
The relationship between sibling relationship quality and learner’s behavior.
| Task type | Predictor | Verbal expression | Physical |
Refusal | Positive feedback | Negative feedback | Off-task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | SRQ | 0.53** | 0.49** | 0.12 | 0.33 | −0.25 | 0.09 |
| Language | SRQ | 0.36* | 0.18 | −0.12 | 0.17 | −0.22 | 0.09 |
In both mathematics/spatial teaching tasks and language teaching tasks, the learner behaviors that are correlated with sibling relationship quality are entered into regression equations. In the mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, sibling relationship quality is used as the predictor variable, and the learner’s verbal expression and physical expression are the dependent variables. In the language teaching tasks, sibling relationship quality is used as the predictor variable, and the learner’s verbal expression is the dependent variable. Multiple linear regression analysis is conducted, and the results are presented in
The predictive role of sibling relationship quality on learner’s behavior.
| Task type | Predictor variable | Dependent variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | SRQ | Verbal expression | 0.53 | 3.53** | 0.28 | 12.47** |
| SRQ | Physical expression | 0.49 | 3.18** | 0.24 | 10.08** | |
| Language | SRQ | Verbal expression | 0.36 | 2.18* | 0.13 | 4.73* |
In the mathematics/spatial teaching tasks, the predictor variable of sibling relationship quality can explain 28% of the variance in the learner’s verbal expression,
In the language teaching tasks, the predictor variable of sibling relationship quality can explain 13% of the variance in the learner’s language expression,
Previous studies have consistently shown that sibling teaching is closely related to children’s social–cognitive development, instructional understanding, and interactional contexts (
The differential patterns observed across mathematical/spatial and language teaching tasks further suggest that task structure and normative expectations may shape the extent to which social–cognitive and relational factors are activated during sibling teaching. In particular, instructional activities that place greater demands on problem solving and step-by-step guidance may be more sensitive to individual differences in social–cognitive abilities and relational context than tasks that rely more heavily on routine verbal interaction (
During teaching activities, children form an understanding of instructional goals and their own roles within the interaction. When children become aware that they possess greater knowledge than another child, they may recognize their potential role as a “little teacher,” leading to the emergence of intentional teaching behavior (
In research focusing on sibling teaching activities, instructors’ theory of mind has been consistently associated with more learner-centered and adaptive instructional strategies (
Previous studies have shown that instructors with higher levels of theory of mind tend to employ more cognitive strategies and provide more positive feedback during teaching interactions (
Consistent with this body of research, the present study found that, in both mathematical/spatial and language teaching tasks, instructors who scored higher on theory of mind measures used more cognitive strategies and provided more positive feedback during sibling teaching. Rather than reflecting a general increase in all teaching behaviors, this pattern suggests that theory of mind is particularly relevant for instructional actions that require sensitivity to learners’ understanding and the coordination of teaching goals with learners’ cognitive states.
Theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand and interpret others’ mental states, including their knowledge, beliefs, emotions, and intentions (
Within the Chinese family context, where older siblings are often expected to assume a guiding or instructional role, such social–cognitive abilities may be particularly important for adapting teaching behaviors to the needs of younger siblings. At the same time, an alternative explanation is that children with more advanced verbal abilities may also be more inclined to engage in cognitively demanding instructional strategies. Future research could further disentangle the unique contributions of social–cognitive understanding and language ability in shaping instructors’ teaching behaviors.
Notably, theory of mind was not uniformly associated with all forms of teaching behavior (
The acquisition of theory of mind equips children with the psychological capacity to understand others’ emotions, intentions, and goals, allowing them to interpret and anticipate others’ behavior during social interactions (
One possible explanation is that children with more advanced theory of mind are better able to recognize the instructor’s intention to provide help and guidance, which may reduce misunderstandings and resistance during teaching (
Importantly, although theory of mind was associated with reduced off-task and disengagement behaviors, it did not predict learners’ verbal expression during teaching activities. This pattern suggests that behavioral regulation and expressive participation may rely on partially distinct mechanisms (
When siblings share a warmer and more positive relationship, they are more likely to engage in frequent interactions, which in turn provides greater opportunities for mutual observation and learning (
The findings of the present study align with prior research by showing that, across both mathematical/spatial and language teaching tasks, higher sibling relationship quality was associated with greater use of cognitive strategies by instructors. One possible explanation is that positive sibling relationships facilitate a cooperative interactional climate, in which instructors are more willing to invest effort in explaining, guiding, and scaffolding learners’ understanding (
In addition, sibling relationship quality was negatively associated with instructors’ use of negative feedback in mathematical/spatial teaching tasks. Mathematical and spatial tasks often require step-by-step guidance, sustained attention, and error correction, which may increase the likelihood of frustration during instruction (
Notably, sibling relationship quality did not emerge as a significant predictor of all instructional behaviors across tasks. One possible explanation is that, within Chinese families, parental norms emphasizing compliance, responsibility, and older siblings’ instructional roles may partially override relational dynamics in certain contexts (
Sibling relationship quality plays an important role in shaping learners’ engagement during sibling teaching activities. A higher-quality sibling relationship provides a supportive interpersonal context in which learners are more willing to observe, imitate, and actively participate in instructional interactions (
One possible explanation is that higher-quality sibling relationships promote relational alignment and trust between siblings, making learners more receptive to instructional guidance (
These findings suggest that sibling relationship quality contributes to learners’ active participation by shaping the interpersonal conditions under which learning takes place. Rather than uniformly increasing all forms of learner behavior, relationship quality appears to influence the specific modes of engagement that are most relevant to the instructional demands of different task types. This task-sensitive pattern further supports the view that sibling teaching is a context-dependent process, jointly shaped by relational dynamics and instructional characteristics.
Despite the strengths of the observational design, several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged, which also point to directions for future research. First, the relatively small sample size of 34 sibling dyads may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although this sample size is comparable to that of prior observational studies on sibling interactions, the results should be interpreted with caution and may not readily extend to broader populations or different cultural contexts. Future research with larger and more diverse samples would be valuable for replicating and extending the present findings.
Second, the study focused on structured teaching tasks within a specific observational context, which may not fully capture the range of sibling teaching behaviors that occur in everyday family interactions. Teaching dynamics in naturalistic settings may differ in important ways from those observed in task-based situations. Future studies could adopt longitudinal or naturalistic designs to examine how theory of mind and sibling relationship quality influence sibling teaching across a wider range of daily contexts.
Finally, although the present study examined both instructors’ and learners’ behaviors, other potentially relevant factors—such as parental involvement, family educational practices, or individual language abilities—were not directly assessed. Future research could incorporate these variables to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying sibling teaching processes.
This study examined the roles of theory of mind and sibling relationship quality in shaping instructors’ and learners’ behaviors during sibling teaching within Chinese families with two children. The findings indicate that theory of mind is particularly relevant for cognitively demanding and learner-centered instructional strategies, as well as for learners’ behavioral regulation during teaching interactions. In addition, sibling relationship quality emerged as an important contextual factor that supports both instructors’ and learners’ engagement, with its influence varying across different instructional tasks. Together, these results highlight sibling teaching as a context-dependent process jointly shaped by social–cognitive development and relational dynamics. The present study contributes to a more differentiated understanding of sibling teaching and underscores the importance of considering both cognitive and relational factors when supporting positive learning interactions between siblings.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
XC: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Supervision. LP: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Visualization, Investigation.
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at:
Descriptions of the mathematical/spatial teaching tasks (simple and complex tasks).
Descriptions of the language teaching tasks (simple and complex tasks).
Detailed instruments used to assess Theory of Mind in firstborn and second-born children.
Parent-reported questionnaire on sibling relationship quality.
Edited by:
Reviewed by: