Wiley, Society For Research in Child Development Child Development

Conflicts between Children
Author(s): Carolyn Uhlinger Shantz

Source: Child Development, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 283-305
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130507
Accessed: 21-07-2016 16:18 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley, Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:18:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Review
Conflicts between Children
Carolyn Uhlinger Shantz

Wayne State University
SHANTZ, CAROLYN UHLINGER. Conflicts between Children. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1987, 58, 283-
305. Interpersonal conflicts of children in natural settings are the focus of this review of the empir-
ical literature in social and cognitive development and sociolinguistics. The central role of conflict in
various developmental theories is outlined, conflict is differentiated from aggression, and the major
features of social conflicts are described: their incidence and duration, and the issues, strategies, and
outcomes of conflict episodes. Several studies indicate substantial relations between children's
social-cognitive functioning and their conflict behavior, particularly in disputes about object posses-
sion and peer-group entry. The study of conflict appears to be useful in revealing aspects of the
organization of the behavior of individuals and of dyads, and in revealing some of the information
structure of the social environment of children.
Conflict is a central concept in virtually trapsychic conflict but vary in the emphasis
every major theory of human development. given each. Theories of personality and social
Moments of conflict are viewed as dynamic, development such as Freud's and Erikson's
critical episodes of adapting or not adapting, are constructed around conflict as a major
progressing or regressing. The theoretical im- force in ontogenesis. For Freud (Hall, 1954),
portance of this concept for development has conflict was the incompatibility between the
long recommended it for empirical study. individual's drives and society's demands and
Paradoxically, it has attracted little direct in- rules, conflict that engenders anxiety and de-
vestigation. During the last few years, how- fenses against it. His functional units of per-
ever, a body of research has been emerging sonality-the id, ego, and superego-were
on conflict between children that affords a viewed as being in a frequent state of disequi-
tentative picture of the major features of con- librium, the ego negotiating conflicts between
flicts-the issues, strategies, and outcomes of the "wish" and the "ought." Erikson's (1959)
conflict episodes, and their relation to social- elaboration of psychoanalytic theory specified
cognitive functioning. The purpose of this ar- conflict at three levels as the core construct of
ticle is (a) to review briefly the theoretical developmental change. At one level is the
role of conflict in development, (b) to differ- conflict between the emerging personality of
entiate conflict and aggression, (c) to describe the child and the demands of parents (as rep-
some of the findings about natural interper- resentatives of society). At another level are
sonal conflicts between children, and (d) to conflicts within the individual that he labeled
suggest some uses of conflict in the study of "crises of psychosocial development," such as
social development. "to trust" versus "not to trust," "to be inti-
mate" versus "to be isolated."' And, finally,
The major stage theories of human devel- he posited conflicts between modes of adapt-
opment address both interpersonal and in- ing, such as "to hold on" versus "to let go."
This paper is based in part on a presidential address to the Division on Developmental Psy-
chology of the American Psychological Association at the August 1984 meeting. The preparation of
this paper was facilitated by grants to David W. Shantz and Carolyn U. Shantz from the National
Science Foundation (BNS77-07901) and from Wayne State University. I thank the many colleagues
and students who contributed in discussions and in their writings to my thinking about children's
conflicts. Requests for reprints may be addressed to me at the Department of Psychology, Wayne
State University, Detroit, MI 48202.
1 The term "crisis," defined as a turning point for better or worse, expresses most clearly the
inherently uncertain outcomes of conflicts. So, too, uncertainty is succinctly expressed in the Chi-
nese character for conflict: two superimposed symbols, one for opportunity and one for danger
(Hocker & Wilmot, 1985).
[Child Development, 1987, 58, 283-305. ? 1987 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/87/5802-0002$01.00]
284 Child Development
The essential conflict in Piaget's (1928, conflict, little research has been addressed to
1932) theory is the lack of fit between the in- it-its basic features and effects. Such neglect
dividual's current sensorimotor or mental might constitute prima facie evidence that
schemas and the demands of objects and theories do not guide research activities in the
events. He conceptualized two mecha- field in any substantial way. More likely, I
nisms-assimilation and accommodation-to would suggest, two factors have encouraged
deal with the lack of fit between existing the neglect: (a) conceptually, conflict has
structures and reality. The classic conserva- tended to be equated with aggression, and (b)
tion problem was often used by Piaget to il- psychologists have focused primarily on the
lustrate the conflict between logic (what must individual as the "unit" of interest rather than
be) and perception (what reality appears to the dyad as the unit, specifically relations be-
be). Many of the major "problems" employed tween individuals.
by Piaget to reveal development were con-
flicts between reality and appearance. Social In the first case, terms are often not well
differentiated. A multitude of terms are used
conflict, too, was given a major role. Here he
posited that conflict, particularly between almost interchangeably in the literature: be-
those of equal power, is essential for the re- havior that is aggressive, agonistic, assertive,
duction of egocentrism. One child's objec- aversive, coercive, conflictual, disruptive, and
tions to another's goals, for example, serve as sometimes the very broad term "negative." Of
prods to the child to reflect on her or his own these, aggression has had center stage: "Few
reasons for holding certain positions, wanting topics have attracted as much theoretical and
certain things, and the like in order to justify empirical attention over the past century as
the merits of the child's viewpoint and the the development and regulation of aggressive
logic of the reasoning. Such interpersonal behavior," Parke and Slaby (1983, p. 548)
conflict engenders intrapsychic conflict (cog- state in their chapter on the development of
nitive conflict), to result in the ability, Piaget aggression. They defined aggressive behav-
thought, to operate in concert with others, that ior, like many who study it, as "behavior that
is, to co-operate, and to foster cognitive devel- is aimed at harming or injuring another per-
opment in general. son or persons" (1983, p. 550).
Apart from these classic theories, other In contrast, a state of conflict denotes
current approaches to development also give incompatible behaviors or goals. The in-
conflict an influential role. For example, compatibility is expressed when one person
Klaus Riegel (1976) used conflict explicitly overtly opposes another person's actions or
and centrally in his dialectical model of de- statements. For example, Hay (1984) used the
velopment. Here the individual is viewed as operational definition of social conflict as
operating and changing within several sys- "when one person does something to which a
tems: interbiological, psychological, cultural- second person objects, the initial act may or
sociological, and external-physical. Conflicts may not have been intended to harm its recip-
play a major role in bringing about successful ient" (p. 2). Likewise, verbal conflicts have
development. "They provide the fundamen- been defined as based on overt opposition be-
tal basis for the development of the individual tween two interactors (O'Keefe & Benoit,
and for the history of society" (Riegel, 1976, p. 1982) indexed by "refusing, denying, object-
695). Ethological theorists, too, have used the ing or prohibiting, and disagreeing" (Garvey,
concept of conflict in their analysis of the or- 1984, p. 129). These definitions are echoed by
ganism's adaptation to its environment (e.g., Shantz and Shantz (1985) in a study of natural
Weigel, 1984). For example, conflict is the so- conflicts among elementary-school-aged chil-
cial context within which social structures dren: essentially, occasions when child A
such as dominance hierarchies emerge in does or says something that influences child
groups. Likewise, cognitive ethologists (e.g., B, child B resists, and child A persists.
Charlesworth, 1979) have documented the
These definitions are in accord with such
everyday barriers-both physical and so-
dictionary definitions as that of the 1967 Ran-
cial-that young children encounter and how
these barriers are negotiated. dom House Dictionary: "to come into colli-
sion or disagreement; to be contradictory, at
In summary, most of the theories that ad- variance, or in opposition ... controversy,
dress fundamental issues in cognitive and so- quarrel, incompatibility, or interference."
cial development posit conflict as an essential Such a definition, then, encompasses not only
impetus to change, adaptation, and develop- petty bickering but also debates and "the
ment. Yet for all this theoretical emphasis on most highly valued accomplishments of logi-
Carolyn Uhlinger Shantz 285
cal argumentation" (Garvey, 1984, p. 129).2 In review: (1) An implicit or explicit dyadic
summary, aggression and conflict are separate definition of conflict was used. Therefore,
concepts, differently defined and opera- studies that focused solely on agonism or ag-
tionalized. The tendency to equate them may gression were excluded (e.g., Sluckin &
be due to the fact that aggressive behavior Smith, 1977; Strayer & Strayer, 1976) even if
occurs most often in the context of social con- the term "conflict" was used to refer to such
flict and not "out of the blue." One thesis of behavior (e.g., Sackin & Thelen, 1984). (2) An
this article is that the reverse does not hold: explicit or implicit statement was made that
Most conflict does not involve aggression. opposition between the interactants was in-
volved in the majority of behavior being
A second possible reason for the neglect studied. This criterion excludes related re-
of research on social conflict, as noted earlier,
search on such topics as requestive behavior
is that psychology traditionally has been con-
cerned with the characteristics and behavior and persuasion because often it is not clear
whether requests met with immediate com-
of the individual, such as the individual be-
pliance (i.e., no opposition) or persuasion oc-
having intelligently, anxiously, or aggres-
curred in the absence of overt opposition. (3)
sively. But conflict is not defined as an indi-
Indications were given that the conflicts
vidual's behavior, a response, or a personality
were, at the moment they were occurring,
trait. Rather, it takes two (or more) individuals
serious to the participants and not playful
to be in social conflict, one opposing the
bouts of teasing or insulting. A parallel dis-
other. As such, conflict is a dyadic relation of
tinction is usually made in research on ag-
individuals, variously described as a "form of
gression between serious (intending to harm)
social exchange between at least two people"
and playful (rough-and-tumble) aggression.
(Hay, 1984, p. 2) or a state of "mutual resis-
(4) The subjects observed were not members
tance" between two or more people (Shantz
of the same family. This criterion served the
& Shantz, 1985, p. 4). This dyadic notion of
aim of delimiting a reasonable corpus of work
conflict is well recognized by conflict theo-
to review, and thus sibling conflict and par-
rists (e.g., Coser, 1956; Deutsch, 1973; Stag-
ent-child conflict studies were excluded. (5)
ner, 1967) but is seldom made explicit by
others. Finally, for the same pragmatic reason, stud-
ies of intrapsychic conflict (i.e., conflict within
The dyadic conception of conflict pre- the individual) were excluded; this article is
sumes that the interactants' goals are to over- confined to interpersonal conflict (i.e., conflict
come one another's opposition or resistance. between individuals).
For example, the goals might be that the toy
Social conflict has been studied most of-
possessor relinquish the toy and that the toy
seeker cease and desist. How one goes about ten, but not exclusively, among toddlers and
overcoming resistance may be conceptualized preschoolers, usually in nursery schools and
as strategies or tactics such as persuading, sometimes in dyads or small groups in labora-
bribing, threatening, sharing, insulting, or tory settings. Some of this observational work
physically aggressing. In short, a variety of was done more than 50 years ago, as in Elise
prosocial and antisocial behaviors may occur. Green's (1933) and Helen Dawe's (1934)
To conceptualize such behaviors as strategies studies of preschoolers' quarrels. More re-
within conflict episodes highlights the fact cently, social conflict has been examined in
that the voluminous research on aggression relation to topics as diverse as sociolinguist-
constitutes only the indirect study, at most, of ics, rule transgressions, sociometric status,
conflict. That is, aggressive behavior is only and social-cognitive development.
one of many types of behaviors that may occur
To organize the research on children's
in conflict, or, in fact, it may be entirely ab-
conflictual relations, a temporal framework is
sent. Indeed, much of the traditional research
used in this review. This accords with
on aggression between peers provides only a
shadowy picture of the nature of children's
Hinde's (1976) proposal that social relations
conflicts. be studied as sequences of interpersonal be-
haviors: "A relationship involves a series of
In order to clarify that picture, certain cri- interactions in time (p. 4). Conflicts can be
teria were used for including studies in this viewed as time-distributed social episodes
2 O'Keefe (1982), considering some of the conceptual issues in argumentation theory, distin-
guishes between individuals making an argument (i.e., making a claim and giving reasons) in
contrast to individuals having an argument (i.e., a disputatious interaction), the latter being the sense
of argument used in this article.
having their own microgenetic features. This tend to assume that a peer's actual or
view provides (a) a means of answering some threatened physical attack, or his or her de-
fundamental questions about conflicts (e.g., signs on one's toys set up a conflict situation
how they begin, what happens during the ep- to which the second actor is compelled to re-
isodes, and how they end); (b) a more dy- spond" (p. 7). In such a situation, if the sec-
namic, social-process understanding of inter- ond child immediately yielded, no conflict
personal behavior than does a topical would have been established, and, as such,
organization; and (c) importantly, a good the incidence of conflict would be overes-
match to the types of questions asked often by timated. Likewise, Hay observes, conflicts
researchers. that began in other ways than actual or
threatened physical attack would likely be
We first address broad questions: How
underestimated in these studies. Thus, at this
often do conflicts typically occur between
point, the data should be treated as approxi-
children? and How long do such episodes mations of incidence until more observational
usually last? Then, at a narrower, more de-
studies of dyadically defined conflict are
tailed level, we examine these questions: available.
What starts children's conflicts, that is, what is
at issue? What kinds of opposition are used? Not only are conflicts infrequent, they are
What behaviors or strategies occur during the brief. The average duration of conflicts across
course of conflicts? What are the apparent out- several studies was 24 sec (Dawe, 1934;
comes of conflicts? Then both strategies and Green, 1933; Hay & Ross, 1982; Houseman,
outcomes are examined in two specific types 1972). How onsets and offsets are determined
of conflicts-obtaining possession of an object influences these data, of course. Houseman
such as a toy, and entering an ongoing group (1972), for example, found the average dura-
of peers at play. tion was 12 sec, but some conflicts were re-
sumed after brief interludes; that is, the issue
Peer Conflict Studies was rejoined. If these rejoinings were
Incidence and Duration summed, the average conflict was 31 sec. In a
The incidence of conflict among pre- study of verbal conflicts, Eisenberg and Gar-
school children has been estimated by Hay vey (1981) found that verbal exchanges be-
(1984). She used 10 published studies span- tween partners followed the same pattern:
ning 50 years and three countries in which 92% of conflict episodes were shorter than 10
observations were described of 31 groups exchanges, and 66% were shorter than 5.
(e.g., nursery school classes) or sets of labora- Likewise, O'Keefe and Benoit (1982) ob-
tory-based dyads from middle and lower so- served that conflicts between 2- and 5-year-
olds contained a median of five turns.
cioeconomic levels. Hay transformed the re-
ported data to the common metric of conflicts Although conflicts are rare and short,
per hour. Of 11 groups observed using focal they should not be thought unimportant. Cer-
individual sampling (each child in the group tainly aggression would not be thought unim-
is observed in random order for a specific portant because it, too, is infrequent and brief.
time period), the median number of conflicts The participants at the time of conflict give
per hour was about 8; among the 20 groups in every indication of being serious in their pur-
which event sampling was used (scans of the suits; these are not trivial events at the mo-
entire group to record all incidents of con- ment they are occurring. Given the painful
flict), the median was about 5 conflicts per impact of some conflicts, such as being ex-
hour. Not surprisingly, the groups varied cluded from a play group, or, on the other
widely in incidents per hour (rounded); focal hand, given the pleasant feeling of winning a
sampling, 4 to 17; event sampling, 2 to 23. contest or the shared glee at the termination
The mean age of the children in the groups of conflict (see Appendix, Example 5), these
studied ranged from 18.4 to 62 months and, events appear to have substantial affective
Hay found, the mean age was not substan- meaning for the children involved.
tially related (r = -.17) to the hourly rate of
Issues of Conflict
conflict per theoretic dyad. (The latter trans-
The outset of any conflict episode in-
formation was used to adjust for different-
volves the blocking of one child's goal by an-
sized groups.) other child. Some researchers use this as a
A more liberal criterion for inclusion of definition of a state of conflict; others require
studies was used by Hay than is used in this more-that the first child persist in an attempt
article. She pointed out that some of the in- to achieve the goal following resistance.
cluded studies "do not employ the stringent Either way, the question is, What is the goal
dyadic definition of conflict . .. rather, they all that is resisted? What is the issue that gives
rise to a state of conflict? The largest percent- Other issues that provoke conflict include
age of conflicts during the toddler and pre- social intrusiveness (Hay, 1984), which can be
school ages appears to involve the possession an initial unprovoked physical attack or, less
and use of objects (Brenner & Mueller, 1982; blatantly, interfering with a peer's ongoing ac-
Bronson, 1975; Dawe, 1934; Genishi & DiPa- tivity. Likewise, violating conventional or
ola, 1982; Houseman, 1972; see Appendix, moral rules engenders conflict (to be de-
Example 4). Hay (1984) reached the same scribed in more detail later). Although social
conclusion, using a partially overlapping set intrusiveness and rule violations clearly be-
of studies. come bases for conflict, currently there are
insufficient data and coding differences to de-
The second largest category appears to
be conflict over another child's actions or lack termine the relative proportion of children's
conflicts that concern such issues.4
of action, such as threatening a peer or refus-
ing to adopt a fantasy role (see Appendix, Ex- It is important to note some of the com-
amples 2 and 6). There is some hint of a de- plexities involved in determining what is at
velopmental trend in that, as children get issue in conflict. First, virtually any behavior
older, an increasingly smaller proportion of can begin a conflict episode. As Garvey
the conflicts are about the physical environ- (1984) states: "We found that it was not possi-
ment (e.g., objects and space) and an increas- ble to predict in advance how a conflict would
ingly larger proportion concern control of the begin. Almost any remark could be chal-
"social environment" (Dawe, 1934; House- lenged, and even a seemingly innocuous sug-
man, 1972; Shantz & Shantz, 1985). Here, the gestion or request could be opposed" (1984,
social environment includes not only actions pp. 143-144). Even the positive social over-
and inactions but also conflicts over ideas, tures of smiling, hugging, or offering help can
facts, or beliefs. Although the relative propor- start conflict if the potential recipient does not
tions appear to change for physical and social want to be smiled at, hugged, or helped, and
control issues with age, the changes result in subsequently protests (see Appendix, Ex-
almost equal proportions occurring in the two ample 3). Only when one has a running re-
categories. Those equal proportions first ap- cord of a social interaction (such as a video-
pear at ages 41/2-51/2 (Dawe, 1934) and also taped record) or is individual sampling can
occur at ages 6-7 (Shantz & Shantz, 1985).3 one know with some certainty what act be-
Those studies which included disputes over gins a conflict episode. For example, when
facts and opinions indicate that usually only using videotapes, one can reverse the tape for
15% or less of young children's conflicts are of events preceding the protest. When using
that type (Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; Genishi event coding, however, the observers' atten-
& DiPaola, 1982; Houseman, 1972; Shantz & tion may be drawn to the interaction only at
Shantz, 1985). the time of the protest; the act that gave rise to
Although a high proportion of toddlers' the protest thus may not be discernible.
conflicts concern objects and their use, this Second, what is at issue in a conflict may
does not mean that attempts to take another's be more apparent than real. Consider object
object lead inevitably to conflict. For ex- disputes. In Hay and Ross's (1982) study of
ample, Hay (1984) reports an unpublished conflicts among 21-month-olds, 88% were
study by Russell indicating that, of 113 at- over objects. But, the authors point out, a
tempts by 18-month-olds to take a toy from focus on the inanimate object does not neces-
either an unfamiliar 12- or 24-month-old part- sarily mean that it is the object per se and
ner, only 26% led to conflict. However, in a only the object that is at issue. "For example,
day-care center enrolling 11 toddlers with a children abandoned toys they were playing
mean age of 18 months, Bakeman and Brown- with to seize identical toys their peers picked
lee (1982) found resistance to taking 72% of up. In general, it seems that control over the
the time. The extent to which "take attempts" peers' activities as well as access to attractive
elicit protest likely varies with other factors; toys was at issue in these disputes, which in
the point is simply that taking attempts do not turn suggests that more than one theme may
lead necessarily to conflict. characterize a given conflict" (Hay, 1984, p.
3 This is based on comparing Dawe's category "possession" disputes to two social categories
called "interference with activity" and "social adjustment" (Dawe, 1934) and comparing "object
disputes" to "person disputes" and "debates" (Shantz & Shantz, 1985).
4 Category systems used to code issues vary substantially between studies so that the relative
proportions of some types cannot be determined. For example, in some research "physical attack"
and "attempts to get another's toy" are combined in a category of "moral issues" (vs. "conventional
issues"), such as in Smetana (1984).
16). Likewise, older children may pursue two next most frequent (35%) was type a. The im-
or more goals simultaneously (e.g., to get their portance of a simple "No" is that in 92% of
way while staying on friendly terms with these oppositions the conflict continued. As
their adversary). noted, "Most children will not accept a sim-
ple No from a peer as a sufficient form of op-
Third, the issue that sets off a conflict position. The opposer is expected to give an
may not remain as a predominant issue within accounting for most nonpositive responses"
the conflict episode. Whereas object posses- (1981, p. 159). As such, children seem to
sion may begin a conflict, if in the course of know the adult rule that when you disagree,
the episode one child physically aggresses refuse, or contradict, you don't just say
against the other, the goal may shift from pos- "No"-you provide a reason.
sessing the object to retaliation for the aggres-
sion.
These oppositional moves appear to be
Oppositions well known to older children in that they can
We have described thus far the kinds of produce them "on demand." For example,
acts-verbal and nonverbal-that begin chil- Brenneis and Lein (1977) asked third- and
dren's conflicts. Now we turn to the initial fourth-grade dyads to role-play disputes over
opposition of a second child to the first child's objects and over who was smarter and who
act, a necessary event for a state of conflict to stronger. Of the 22 arguments analyzed, 68%
be coded (e.g., Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; contained the sequence of an assertion by one
O'Keefe & Benoit, 1982). How does the sec- child followed by the other opposing with an
ond child oppose the first child? Studying dy- assertion, negation, or rule reason ("I had it
ads of children (ages 2-5) at play, O'Keefe first."). The remaining sequences began with
and Benoit (1982) found that two types of op- either an imperative opposed by a negation or
position accounted for 60% of the arguments an insult opposed by a negation or a counter-
insult.
in both younger and older dyads: (a) the "op-
poser" refused to satisfy the other child's re-
quest, order, or stated need, or (b) the opposer This initial opposition is often viewed as
denied the other's assertion. Boggs (1978) a necessary event in defining and coding a
found in a group of Hawaiian children a simi- state of conflict. But is this opposition also
lar behavior called "contradicting routines." sufficient to define conflict states? There is
The major sequence in their verbal disputes more ambiguity about researchers' views on
was the opposer exclaiming "Not!" to signal a sufficiency. If opposition is sufficient, then
serious dispute, and then contradicting the simple sequences of the following sort would
other child's claim, assertion, or allegation. A seem to qualify as conflict: antecedent
hint of age differences in the rate of opposi- event--opposition-->compliance to opposi-
tion is given by Levin and Rubin's (1983) tion. Thus, if only one child's initial opposi-
finding that preschoolers' requests of one an- tion is sufficient to define conflict, then a very
other met with failure (active refusal or ignor- wide range of behavior exchanges may qual-
ing) more often than did requests that first and ify as conflict. Maynard (1985) has argued that
third graders made of one another. "opposition is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for argument" (p. 12) because this
A more detailed examination of opposi- initial opposition can be responded to in
tion "moves" was provided by Eisenberg and many ways. For example, opposition may be
Garvey (1981). They studied verbal conflicts complied with, ignored, or responded to play-
between 88 acquainted and unacquainted dy- fully. However, if a child opposes another
ads of children ranging in age from about 2?/2 child's initial opposition, the sufficiency con-
to 51/2 years, dyads composed of children dition would seem to hold. Interestingly, it
within 1 year of age. They found five primary appears that many researchers actually use
initial opposing moves to claims such as "I'm "opposition-to-opposition" as necessary and
going to drive the car": (a) a simple "No" or sufficient to define conflict, judging from pro-
"No, you're not"; (b) a reason for opposing tocols cited in the sociolinguistic literature
with an implicit or explicit negative, "It's and definitions of conflict as mutual opposi-
mine" or "No, it's mine"; (c) a counterpro- tion. This discussion is intended to clarify the
posal, for example, "You ride on the tractor"; criteria of conflict and some of the current am-
(d) a postponement of agreement, for ex- biguities in definition; it is not intended to
ample, "Later you can"; and (e) an evasion or claim that there is one correct way to define
hedge, "It's not a car, it's a truck." The most conflict. Future research would be facilitated,
frequent opposition (49%) was a reason or however, by clear specification of the criteria
justification for the opposition (type b). The used to identify the phenomenon.
Tactics and Strategies and/or verbal aggression occurs in a small per-

The ways in which children pursue their centage of children's disputes, and aggression
goals are virtually limitless. And the ways accounts for a relatively low proportion or fre-
their behavior can be conceptualized by re- quency of children's strategies in conflict.
searchers appears limitless, too. To provide a There is little doubt, of course, that the per-
context for the research on strategies in con- centage of conflicts in which aggression oc-
flicts, let us first examine how children pursue curs could vary considerably depending on
their goals in a class of related events-- the availability of valued resources, the per-
"social problems." In one study (Krasnor & missiveness of adults toward aggression, and
Rubin, 1983), social problems were defined as a host of other factors. But, for the types of
attempts to achieve a specific goal such as be- settings and conditions of these studies, the
ginning a conversation, getting help, or ob- findings underscore the observation that ag-
taining a toy. These problems, then, involve gression does not occur in the large majority
instances of both resistance and nonresistance of children's conflicts.
from others and as such are a more general
It is important to consider that the way in
class of social events than conflict problems.
which tactics are implemented may convey
Krasnor and Rubin found that preschoolers'
different meanings. One example is the phys-
most frequent strategies were to describe, to
ically aggressive act of hitting. Brownlee and
give directions, to show or point, and to ask
Bakeman (1981) found that different conse-
questions. In contrast, grabbing objects or hit-
quences occurred among 1-, 2-, and 3-year-old
ting the other child accounted for only 5% of
boys in different preschool classes depending
the 11 types of coded strategies. Physical ag-
on how they hit. The three types of hits were
gression toward persons and objects is thus
(a) an open-hand, low-intensity hit or swipe at
very infrequent among preschoolers. At the
the torso or limb (which they speculate often
same time, it could be that there was so little
means, "Hey, leave me alone"); (b) hitting
goal resistance that the percentage is far lower
with an object in the hand such as a stuffed
than would occur in conflict (i.e., resistance or
toy, a low-intensity hit or swipe to any part of
opposition) problems specifically. Unfortu-
the body (which means, they thought, "Hey,
nately, the proportion of goal pursuits that
wanna play?"); and (c) a hard hit or any hit to
were opposed initially was not reported.
the head (meaning, they suggested, "Bam, I
We turn, then, to studies in which a con- don't like that"). The consequences of these
flictual relation exists between two children, three types of hits varied most systematically
that is, when one child has opposed the ac- for the 2-year-olds: Open hits most often re-
tions or statements of another child. What sulted in no further interaction or ignoring;
kinds of strategies5 or moves does each child object hits, with neutral or positive interac-
engage in during the course of the conflict tion; and hard hits, with negative affect. The
episode? 1-year-olds seem not to have learned the so-
cial (and arbitrary) meaning of open and ob-
We focus first on aggression. Among tod-
ject hits; on the other hand, the 3-year-olds
dlers, aggression appears to occur in less than
25% of the conflicts (Hay & Ross, 1982; may have conveyed meanings verbally
(which was not coded in this study). But all
Maudry & Nekula, 1939). Among preschool-
age groups most often responded negatively
ers, Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) found that
to hard hits-an act that has intrinsic, not arbi-
physical force was used very rarely: 10 times
trary, meaning. At a minimum, these results
in a total of 835 strategy uses. Among 6- and
suggest that differentiating some traditional
7-year-olds in play groups, Shantz and Shantz
codes such as "physical aggression" by their
(1982) found that half the strategies involved
shared meanings within an age group may be
assertions, negations, expressive nonverbal
an important refinement in future research.
behavior, and ignoring the other child,
whereas only 5% involved physical attacks The claims and counterclaims children
and 4% verbal attacks (derogation). These use during conflict also reveal how they struc-
studies, cited because they most closely ture their conflicts. One example is a study by
match the dyadic definition of conflict and Much and Shweder (1978) of one type of con-
provide relevant data,6 indicate that physical flict-the violation of rules that naturally oc-
5 The terms "strategy" and "tactic" refer to sets of behaviors that seem to subserve a social goal.
They may be either conscious, planned means to foreseeable ends (as these terms usually connote),
or unconscious, automatic, or habitual behaviors that have the effect of subserving goals.
6 Dawe (1934) did not report, unfortunately, the percentage of quarrels in which aggression
occurred once or more, but rather the percentage of children who quarreled who used aggression.
cur in preschools and kindergartens. The data lations are fundamentally structured by per-
included those instances in which a child or spective coordination. Strategies are aimed at
adult opposed the actions or inactions of an- controlling the conflictual situation to achieve
other child by the specific accusation of inner and interpersonal equilibrium, the strat-
breaking a rule, and those spontaneous ac- egies being oriented toward transforming the
counts children sometimes gave of their own other person or the self. Most primitively, the
behavior (as if in recognition that one had bro- other-transforming orientation is manifested
ken a rule, i.e., self-accusation). (It is not clear in simple strategies of drowning out another's
in the study how often the accuser resisted wishes, grabbing, and physical force, whereas
the accused one's response.) Much and self-transforming actions are flight or "robot-
Shweder found that over 90% of accusations like obedience." The next level of other- and
and accounts were about the violation of three self-transforming, respectively, is forceful
types of rules: regulations (school rules, es- verbal strategies (ordering, threatening) ver-
sentially), conventions (cultural customs), and sus acting victimized and appealing to author-
moral rules (acts with intrinsically bad social ity. The two highest developmental levels are
effects). Most important, children's strategies characterized by greater appreciation of the
varied with the types of rules broken. For ex- self and other as psychological beings with
ample, when school rules were violated, chil- thoughts and feelings (e.g., the use of "friendly
dren's arguments had a legalistic orientation, persuasion" or the anticipation of others' reac-
referring to the circumstances of the situation tions). The evidence for and use of this model
and competing rules in order to explain or is based on observations of emotionally dis-
justify their misdemeanor. But when moral turbed children in "pair therapy," a clinical
rules were violated, the accounts focused on intervention that uses conflict therapeutically.
the action itself. Specifically, children tended
One final aspect of conflict strategy is
to deny that the act occurred at all, to deny
what Brenneis and Lein (1977) call "stylistic
that they committed the act, or to redefine the
tactics." These are such parameters as the vol-
act so that it was no longer a moral issue. For
ume, speed, and emphases occurring during
example, the authors illustrate redefinition by
conflict that determine the tone or mood of
a child: Sandra accused Diane of "stealing"
the verbal exchange. For example, the vol-
Sandra's chair, but Diane countered that, be-
ume of arguers can be used to the point of an
cause the chair was empty, she merely sat in
it-she didn't steal it. The redefinition ma- "absolute fortissimo," and may, in fact, deter-
mine who wins. Unfortunately, such stylistic
neuver negates the moral force of the argu-
features of arguments seem not to have been
ment: One can hardly be held morally ac-
examined in natural conflicts but only when
countable for sitting in an empty chair.
children are role-playing disputes (see Bren-
Further, there appear to be predictable neis & Lein). Other studies concerning the
sequences of responses to being accused of strategies children use will be presented later
violating rules (of all types), as Walton and in relation to conflict outcomes.
Sedlak (1982) found in their study of children Outcomes
in kindergarten through fourth-grade classes.
The final temporal question is, What are
The accused one most often responded with a the outcomes of conflict between children?
reason or justification and seldom ignored the
Some of the major findings follow, summed
challenge, responded ambiguously, or re- across different goals and different strategies
sponded with defiance (in this age span, e.g., used in conflict.
"I couldn't care less" or, sarcastically, "I am
so sorry!"). Whereas giving a reason was 1. The majority of conflicts that pre-
likely to end the interchange, other responses schoolers have are settled by the children
tended to elicit other sequences as the con- themselves-one way or the other-without
flict continued. These studies of conflicts over adult intervention (Bakeman & Brownlee,
rule violations indicate that children have ac- 1982; Dawe, 1934; Genishi & DiPaolo, 1982;
quired substantial social knowledge very Hay & Ross, 1982; Houseman, 1972).
early in life.
2. Of those settled by children, there are
Strategies in most research have been quite clear win/loss outcomes in most con-
characterized by their manifest content or flicts, that is, one child gives up his or her
their linguistic form. Selman and Demorest own goal and yields or complies with the
(1984), however, have proposed a develop- other's goal (Dawe, 1934; Shantz & Shantz,
mental model of negotiation strategies. They 1982). It is probably the case that observers
propose four developmental levels of strate- can determine win/loss outcomes with the
gies based on Selman's notions that social re- greatest ease and reliability when objects are
in dispute as compared to other conflict is- will examine the role of tactics within a single
sues.7
goal. This will allow a closer examination of
3. Dawe (1934) found that about 75% of some of the processes that occur during con-
flict episodes.
the 200 quarrels observed were followed by
little or no upset, and play was resumed. In
fact, the responses to most conflicts were Issues, Tactics, and Outcomes
coded as "cheerful." Houseman (1972) also Object possession disputes.-In the case
found that behavior after conflict was not where object possession and use are at issue,
significantly different from behavior before we begin with very young dyads: 6-month-
conflict, and that solitary play occurred after olds as studied in a laboratory playroom with
18% of conflicts; parallel play, 66%; and toys available (Hay, Nash, & Pedersen, 1983).
cooperative play, 16%. The affects were posi- One event of interest was what occurred after
tive after 16% of the conflicts, neutral after one infant reached over and touched a toy
83%, and negative after 1%. that a peer was holding. In 72% of these occa-
4. Some social goals, themselves, are suc- sions, the original toy possessor retained ac-
cessfully achieved more often than others. cess to it and did so with no sign of struggle or
Krasnor and Rubin's (1983) study revealed upset. Likewise, when one infant touched the
that success was greatest for getting another's other, there was usually only a passive reac-
attention, getting information, and starting a tion-merely continuing to look at the partner
conversation, and least when trying to stop or continue the activity. If they reacted, they
another's ongoing activity or getting permis- were likely to reach for or touch the peer in
sion to begin a new one. This suggests that turn rather than to protest. In fact, Hay (1984)
the degree of effort required by the other to elaborated, "Fussing was very rare despite
comply is important in success rate. the fact that the infants frequently sought con-
tact with each other's face and hair, and some-
5. Tactics, too, have different success times found themselves trapped beneath their
rates across goals. In this case, the least suc- partners" (p. 17). This nonnegative response
cessful tactics appear to be sheer insistence to another's touching one's toys or touching
on one's way and the use of either physical or one's body (apart from the intrinsic noxious
verbal aggression (Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; possibilities of having one's hair pulled, be-
Shantz & Shantz, 1982). ing poked, or sat upon) may indicate an "ac-
6. Within goals, the more successful tact- ceptance" of intrusiveness on the self or self's
ics are those which reflect sensitivity to the possessions because there is as yet very little
other's interests and needs and adjustment to if any development of self as a being to be
them (Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; Putallaz & intruded upon.
Gottman, 1981).
7. Success has been related to a much Toddlers, as compared to infants, are not
more fluid aspect of each conflict episode as quite so forbearing when their toys are
well-the roles of defender and intruder. touched or taken. Hay and Ross (1982) video-
Specifically, the defender (of a toy or space) is taped 24 toddler dyads between approxi-
more often successful than is the intruder mately 20 and 23 months of age in a large
(Camras, 1977; Shantz, 1981; Shantz & playroom with their mothers present. The un-
Schomer, 1977; as reported in Weigel, 1984). acquainted dyads were observed for 15 min
As such, young children appear to (almost) on each of 4 consecutive days. A total of 217
abide by the dictum "possession is nine- conflicts (72% of which were object struggles)
tenths of the law." were observed in 40 of the 48 children who
participated. Forcible contact occurred in
8. Finally, Krasnor and Rubin (1983) 16.5% of object struggles. In 23% of object
found that successful problem solutions could conflicts children showed or offered toys. Ver-
not be predicted from tactics alone but were bal statements, not surprisingly for this age
predictable when tactics were considered in group, were primarily assertions, negations,
relation to specific goals. In light of this, we naming the object, or claiming possession.
7Although winning can be defined in general, abstract terms such as obtaining compliance,
O'Keefe and Benoit (1982) note that "what winning means in concrete terms must be defined within
each argument.... Participants must collaborate in establishing a criterion" (of winning and losing)
(pp. 180-181). For example, some arguers may tacitly agree that the winner is the one who can
argue the loudest (Brenneis & Lein, 1977), or endure the longest in repetitious bouts of "Uh huh"/
"Unh uh," or who can utter the worse and most "embroidered" insult (O'Keefe & Benoit, 1982).
An important addition to the data on conflicts of children from ages 2-10 to 5-7. The
flict was provided by the longitudinal design majority of conflicts were over the use or pos-
of Hay and Ross's (1982) study. In examining session of objects and performance of actions.
conflicts over the first 3 days, it was the loser By far the most frequent strategy was insist-
of the last conflict, rather than the winner, ence of the speaker on his or her own goal
who was more likely to initiate the next con- with no elaboration (e.g., A: "You give me
flict (.63 probability for losers vs. .37 for win- that block"; B: "No"; A: "You give me that
ners). This suggests that winning a conflict block"; B: "No"; A: "Yes"). The second most
does not have a high probability of rewarding frequent strategy was to give a reason,
a child so as to result in higher rates of conflict justification, or explanation for disagreement
initiation, as might be predicted from social or noncompliance. A much less frequent
learning theory. Instead, it may be the loser's strategy was to counter the opposition by sug-
dissatisfaction with the prior outcome that in- gesting an alternative, such as playing with a
creases the likelihood that the loser will initi- ball instead of the possessor's block, that is, a
ate another conflict. Another important aspect distractive maneuver. Also occurring at low
of the design was that, on the fourth day, half frequencies were compromising (sharing an
the dyads stayed with their same partner and object), mitigating/aggravating, and condi-
the other half switched partners, thus pro- tional statements (e.g., "I'll be your best
viding an estimate of the extent to which ini- friend if you give me that block"). The "suc-
tiating disputes and yielding are stable char- cess" of a strategy (defined as the conflict end-
acteristics of individuals (proneness to start ing) was greatest for compromises (77%), con-
conflicts and yield regardless of who one's ditional statements (53%), counterproposals
partner is) versus stable characteristics of (41%), and giving a reason (34%). The least
dyads (proneness to start conflicts and yield likely strategies to terminate conflicts were
depending on who one's partner is). For sheer insistence, ignoring the initial opposi-
those dyads who retained partners, initiating tion, or using mitigating/aggravating state-
and yielding in the first 3 days were highly ments.
related to initiating and yielding on the fourth
day (r's = .66 and .54, respectively). For the Eisenberg and Garvey conducted further
group who changed partners, initiating dis- analyses to determine whether any sequences
putes was also stable from the children's first of strategies occurred above chance expec-
3 days (r = .57); however, yielding was not tancy rates. It turned out that one child's in-
stable (r = .05). Thus, initiation of conflict sistence was very likely to elicit insistence
appears to be determined at this age more from the other child; giving a reason was
by dispositional factors and the outcome of likely to be followed by the other child sug-
the preceding conflict, whereas yielding gesting a compromise and very unlikely to be
seems more dependent on the identity of followed by mere insistence on one's way;
the partner. and, if a child either countered, made a condi-
tional statement, or compromised, the conflict
Object conflicts were studied in a class of was likely to end. What these data indicate, in
toddlers (ages 1-2) and a preschool class part, is that the two participants were not ran-
(ages about 3V/2-4) by Bakeman and Brown- domly using strategies but were reacting to
lee (1982). They were interested in knowing the strategies of their opponent. "The suc-
the effects of a child's taking an object when cessful resolution of an adversative episode is
that child had possessed it within 1 min of the a mutual endeavor: a child is more likely to
attempt to take it. For toddlers and preschool- win if he considers his opponent's intentions
ers, the probability of success in getting the and more likely to concede if his own desires
objects when they were the recent possessor are taken into account" (1981, p. 168).
ranged between .72 and .76. Further, pre-
schoolers met less resistance when they were Of course, strategies include not only ver-
the recent possessor than did toddlers. It may bal statements but gestures (as in the largely
be that toddlers are likely to "bumble into nonverbal conflict, Example 6, in the Appen-
conflict" by their attraction to a toy and inat- dix) and affective expressions. Camras (1977)
tention or indifference to who was playing provided unique data on the facial expres-
with it immediately beforehand, whereas pre- sions of children in conflict, particularly the
schoolers are more observant of ownership occurrence of an "aggressive" facial expres-
rights. sion. It is one that has elements of disgust,
anger, and/or determination: lowered brows,
A more detailed picture of strategy use in long stare, face thrust forward, lips pressed
conflict was provided by Eisenberg and Gar- together, and/or nose wrinkled. In this object
vey (1981) in their analysis of over 200 con- dispute study, the object in question was a
gerbil in a box. Dyads of kindergartners (ages across conflictual and nonconflictual epi-
4-11 to 6-6) were told they could play with the sodes. Garvey (1984) described succinctly the
gerbil. Conflict was defined as times when "dos and don'ts" (i.e., the strategies) for suc-
the child playing with the gerbil box resisted cessful entry (Corsaro, 1979, 1981; Dodge et
an attempt by the other child to get the box; a al., 1983, Study 2; Forbes et al., 1982; Putallaz
total of 441 such conflicts occurred among the & Gottman, 1981):
72 pairs of children. The aggressive facial ex-
pressions occurred in about 25% of these con- The Don't's: don't ask questions for information (if
flicts, were associated with persistent at- you can't tell what's going on, you shouldn't be
tempts by the expressors to retain the gerbil, bothering those who do); don't mention yourself or
and were followed by hesitancy on the part of state your feelings about the group or its activity
the challenger to continue trying to take the (they're not interested at the moment); don't dis-
agree or criticize the proceedings (you have no
gerbil. However, one other facial expression
right to do so, since you're an outsider). The Do's:
also elicited hesitancy from the challenger--a be sure you understand the group's frame of refer-
nonaggressive expression of oblique brows, ence, or focus (are they playing house?); under-
which usually signals sadness. Camras sug- stand the participation structure of the activity; slip
gested that the challenger may have under- into the ongoing activity by making some relevant
stood the expression as the possessor feeling comment or begin to act in concert with the others
distress and perhaps felt sympathy and thus as if you actually were a knowledgeable member of
delayed further attempts to get the gerbil. the group; hold off on making suggestions or at-
Camras (1980) later verified children's correct tempting to redirect until you are well into the
group [Garvey, 1984, pp. 164-165]
understanding of the facial expressions actu-
ally observed in conflict. In addition, state-
ments accompanying the "aggressive" face A more detailed picture of the relations
display were more impolite than statements between specific access strategies and group
when children smiled (Camras, 1984). opposition is given in Corsaro's (1979) obser-
vations and videotapes of a class of 3-year-
Group-entry disputes.-The second type olds and a class of 4-year-olds. Of 15 different
of goal to be considered is the child's wish to types of strategies used a total of 592 times,
enter a group of peers in ongoing play. The groups reacted negatively 81% of the time to
social problem is the transition from being an the newcomer's disrupting the ongoing activ-
"outsider" to being an "insider," which may ity, 67% to referring to adult authority, and
be nonconflictual (the group immediately ac- 55% to claiming an area or an object. A child
cepts the newcomer) or conflictual (the group who silently encircled the group was also
resists-at least initially-the child's entry at- very likely to be ignored (81%). Of all the
tempt). strategies used, 65.7% were unsuccessful,
It appears that children meet with initial 31.1% being actively resisted and 34.6% be-
resistance in about half of their entry epi- ing ignored by the group. Dodge et al. (1983,
sodes. For example, Corsaro (1981) observed Study 2) provide corroborating data from
in two nursery school classes over 3 months eight play sessions of 7-8-year-old boys. Of
that 53.9% of the entry attempts were initially six entry strategies, disrupting the group's ac-
resisted. Later in the school year he video- tivity often received a negative response
taped access episodes for 4 months and found (60%). Waiting and hovering without speak-
a rate of 48.6% initial resistance. A similar ing was very likely to be ignored by the group
rate (54%) was reported by Forbes, Katz, Paul, (90%). Of all strategies used, Dodge et al.
and Lubin (1982) in groups of 5- and 7-year- found, as did Corsaro, a high rate of failure
olds. Thus, as a child first tries to join peers at (76%), a combination of active resistance
play he or she is just as likely as not to con- (13%) and ignoring the newcomer (63%). A
front some initial opposition from the group. comparison of these two studies suggests that
However, of those who do meet initial resis- younger children (ages 3 and 4) are more
tance, between 35% and 63% eventually suc- likely to refuse entry actively than "pas-
ceed in becoming a group member (e.g., Cor- sively," whereas older children (7 and 8) are
saro, 1979; Dodge, personal communication, prone to ignore entry bids.
March 12, 1986; Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken,
Beyond the examination of each type of
& Delugach, 1983, Study 2; Forbes et al.,
strategy in isolation, there is some evidence
1982).
that successful entry is related to combina-
To have a general picture of the relation tions of strategies, and especially to the se-
between strategies and outcomes, we con- quence in which they are used. Specifically,
sider first the strategies children use that lead Dodge et al. (1983, Study 2) found that hover-
to successful entry or to exclusion summed ing silently near the group, mimicking the
group's behavior, and then making a group- broad as to obscure developmental changes.
oriented statement often led to successful en- Children may often come into conflict about
try (.82 conditional probability). So, too, Cor- matters they are in the process of mastering,
saro (1979) reported that preschoolers' silent that is, dominant "developmental tasks." For
approach to a group and then producing a be- example, preschoolers have conflicts about
havior like the group's led to successful entry cardinal numbers (e.g., arguments about
88.5% of the time. whether being 4 is older than being 3) and
what are correct behaviors to enact a particu-
To this point, we have considered chil- lar fantasy role (e.g., a boy playing doctor
dren's strategies to enter groups; we now turn laughs, to which another child responds by
to the other side of the interaction-the saying, "No, don't laugh because doctors do
group's strategies of resisting another's en- not laugh" [Genishi & DiPaolo, 1982, p. 62]).
trance. Only one study could be located on Number concepts and fantasy role enact-
this issue. Corsaro (1981) reported five types ments are unlikely sources of conflict for
of opposition preschool groups used, the most older children. During the elementary school
frequent (47%) being claims by the group of years, children might well be more embroiled
ownership of objects or space. Overcrowding in disputes about game rules or comparative
was cited 17% of the time, and the lesser-used issues such as who is more athletically
strategies were to verbally refuse entrance skilled, stronger, or smarter. In sum, more
without justification, to deny friendship with specific and developmentally relevant con-
the newcomer, and to refer to rules concern- tent categories may provide one means of de-
ing the group's needs or the newcomer's sex, termining whether issues differ substantially
size, dress, etc. In this latter case, the sex of across the preschool, childhood, and adoles-
the child and the sex composition of the cent periods.
group were related to groups' resistance. Boys
Strategies during conflict not only vary
attempting access to mixed-sex groups met
widely, but aggression constitutes a smaller
the least resistance (45%), whereas girls at-
proportion than is commonly assumed. Clearly,
tempting access to all-boy groups met the
most of the work in conflict episodes is ac-
most (75%). Apart from gender, why do
complished by talk. And the strategic talk of
groups of children so often resist-at least ini-
tially-the entrance of other children? Cor- children is, at times, sophisticated. For ex-
ample, Garvey (1984) has identified the sub-
saro speculated that group members are
tle maneuver of children to "accept the words
aware that peer interaction is a fragile matter
but persist in one's position" (e.g., "Can I ride
and the entry of others into ongoing episodes
on the car?" "It's not a car. It's a truck." "I
is potentially disruptive to maintaining play.
Likewise, refusal may function for the group
know. Can I ride on the truck?"). Much and
Shweder (1978) also document the redefi-
as a public affirmation of the members' loyalty
and solidarity.
nition maneuver that changes a moral viola-
tion into a mundane, pragmatic matter. But
Summary the developmental changes in strategies are
Children have conflicts over a wide range almost as obscure as those with issues. Here,
of issues and use a wide variety of strategies too, the category systems may underestimate
to achieve their everyday goals. But a central the developmental changes occurring in so-
question is what developmental changes oc- cial strategies. For example, a category of"op-
cur in issues and strategies. No clear answer position" for a study of toddlers may consist
to the question exists at this point. In many of largely of simple, direct negatives ("No"),
the studies, age differences have not been ex- whereas for older children opposition may
amined (rather wide age ranges are summed have many and more oblique forms ("You've
over), no other developmental markers have got to be kidding!"). By coding both direct
been studied, and where age differences have and indirect forms as "opposition," the two
been examined, they are absent or small or age groups might appear remarkably similar.
are inconsistent from one study to the next. Of course, coding systems are based on ex-
plicit or implicit theories, and to have a sensi-
The events that children care enough to tive developmental coding system depends
fight about seem similar, in many respects, to on having an articulated theory about impor-
those of adults: valued resources, controlling tant developmental changes in social behav-
others' behavior, rule violations, facts, and ior in general and in peer relations in particu-
truth. These categories, however, may be so lar.8
8 This review emphasizes the "modal" conflicts of children and does not systematically address
a major concern of many developmentalists: individual differences among the participants in con-
Social-Cognitive Functioning ture interactions but is rather a primitive "out

Now that we have some notion of the of sight, out of mind," here-and-now solution.
An important feature is added at level 1-an
"gross anatomy" of social conflicts between
appreciation of the subjective and psychologi-
children and some initial hints about the pro-
cal effects of conflict. However, those effects
cesses that occur within conflict episodes, we
are seen as applying to only one party in the
move to individual behavior within dyadic
conflict to examine the kinds of social rea- conflict, that is, a unilateral orientation. Es-
sentially, the resolution is for one party to stop
soning involved. Of course, the prior descrip-
doing something so the other party will feel
tions of what children do and say to each
better. Conflict is not understood yet as a
other during conflict are rich sources for mak-
mutual disagreement. Thus, prototypic strate-
ing inferences about what children "must
gies are basically to negate or compensate to
know" and "must be thinking." In this sec-
undo the conflict: "stop the fight and give him
tion, however, we will examine research in
which social knowledge and reasoning were back what you took or take back what you
called him" (1980, p. 108), "give him some-
assessed outside actual conflict episodes. It is
worth bearing in mind, then, that we shift thing nice that will make him feel better" (p.
108), or the one who started the fight should
from the child-as-participant to the child-as-
observer and, further, from the child as an in- "just say he's sorry" (p. 108)-the latter seem-
ingly based on the assumption that disagree-
teractor with another actual companion to the
ments are one person's doing.
child as an evaluator of a hypothetical child.
Concepts of Conflict Level 2 is illustrated by protocols from
Perhaps the most extensive develop- children ages 8-14. Here bilateral notions
mental analysis of conflict concepts and, espe- about conflict are used, but not yet mutual
cially, representations of conflict resolution ones. Specifically, children suggest that one
strategies, is provided by Selman (1980, must get agreement from both parties for the
1981). At the outset, it is important to mention conflict to be "truly" resolved, but they do not
that conflict was investigated within the yet appreciate that those must be mutually
friendship relation and thus may or may not satisfying agreements. Conflict is still often
map directly onto conflicts between unfamil- seen as originating outside the relationship,
iar or newly acquainted children. The data and thus its solution is to make each person
are based on a three-phase interview of 93 happy: "Somebody wants to play one game
individuals between the ages of 3 and 34: (a) and the other wants to play another game and
first, reasoning about the dilemma of choosing ... we will play your game and then we will
between a new and old friend; (b) next, an- play my game .... Then each person gets to
swering questions about issues and strategies do what they want" (1980, p. 109). The ad-
used in friends' fights; and (c) describing the vance in understanding of the psychological
subjects' own conflicts with their friends (Sel- effects of conflict resolution over that of previ-
man, 1981). The protocols were analyzed for ous stages is also clear in the distinction be-
the types of conflict concepts held, using Sel- tween appearance and reality (words and
man's developmental model of social under- truth). It is not enough merely to "take back"
standing based on perspective coordination, one's hurtful words; one must be sincere.
that is, the ability to integrate the thoughts, Other strategies suggested at this level are to
feelings, and intentions of the self and other. separate for a while so friends can then get
A brief synopsis (with illustrations) follows. back together to talk out the conflict, or to
convince a friend that one's perspective on
At level 0, children appear to operate the conflict is the correct one.
from a momentary and physicalistic orienta-
tion: Conflicts are resolved either through Levels 3 and 4, found, respectively, dur-
stopping interaction ("Go play with another ing adolescence and adulthood, go beyond
toy") or with physical force ("Punch her out" the focus of this article. However, to get a
is suggested as a way to stop arguing). The sense of the changing conceptions, they are
separation of combatants does not seem to be briefly described. The modal conception at
viewed as a cooling-off period for better fu- Level 3 is that certain conflicts reside within
flict. Nor does it deal with context differences. This is not due to my indifference to these matters.
Rather, it reflects the judgment that issues such as sex differences and context differences (e.g.,
whether behavior is observed of isolated dyads vs. groups, during indoor vs. outdoor play, with
teacher present vs. absent) have been either insufficiently studied to provide reliable data or have
yielded inconsistent findings.
the relationship itself, and thus only mutually not confined to the friendship relation, and to
satisfying solutions are real solutions. It is not two particular problematic situations where
sufficient to merely "settle up." A clear dis- behavioral data are also available: disputes
tinction is also made between minor conflicts about objects and group entrance.
and those that threaten the basis of friendship
itself, usually a break in the bond of trust. One Object-Possession Disputes
example is: "I think fights are an important We saw earlier that toddlers appear to
part of a close friendship. Nobody is perfect, have more than the object in mind during
and you're bound to get a close friend angry at some of their object disputes (Hay & Ross,
you once in a while. If you don't work it out 1982). The goals of older children in object
things build up and pretty soon the whole arguments, as well as other types of problems,
relationship is blown. In fact, sometimes if were studied directly by Renshaw and Asher
you have a real fight and find out you're still (1983) on the premise that social situations are
friends, then you've got something that is not only inherently ill-defined but that "much
stronger" (1980, p. 89). Suggested resolution of the 'work' of social interactions consists of
strategies are to change one's personality to the participants . . . constructing the goals of
be more compatible with a friend and talk out the interaction as they go along" (p. 354).
mutually what the conflict is about and how to They presented 121 children, ages 8-121/2,
resolve it. The final level deals with the bal- with four hypothetical situations, one of
ance between individuals' dependence and which was: "You ask a child who is new to
independence in friendships, and the sym- the neighborhood to watch cartoons one
bolic and unstated ways of handling conflicts. Saturday morning. After about ten minutes,
In summary, these conceptions of conflict and the child changes the channel without ask-
its resolution suggest three underlying di- ing" (p. 358). The children were asked what
mensions that change with development: (a) they would do or say in that situation and why
temporal orientation (from an immediate here (the latter to elicit the goal underlying the
and now to future interaction), (b) the focus of cited strategies). The most consistent age dif-
the conflicts (from physical acts, to people as ferences in goals and strategies occurred in
psychological beings, to the relationship it- this object conflict-the use of the televi-
self), and (c) conceptions of relations (from sion-in comparison to the problems of initi-
unilateral, to bilateral, to mutual). ating play, sharing a friend, or dealing with
peers resisting group entry. Older children
Youniss and Volpe (1978) also studied focused on the goal of making a new friend
conflict conceptions within the friendship re- and helping the newcomer learn the "rules of
lation but used a "relational perspective" de- the territory," whereas younger children
rived from Piaget's (1932) and Sullivan's focused on hostile goals (e.g., defending their
(1953) theories. Children between 7 and 13 rights to the use of the television). Older chil-
were asked to tell a story in which a friend did dren deferred to the new child's wishes to
something that the other friend did not like change channels; younger children wanted to
and were asked what each might do about it. exclude the newcomer by avoidance and hos-
The majority of younger children (ages 7 and tile strategies. These data are consistent with
8) cited hitting, taking a toy, and name calling, Selman's findings that, as children get older,
whereas most of the oldest cited a violation of they are more oriented toward the future and
a friendship principle, such as not helping a establishing or maintaining good relation-
friend in need or breaking a promise. These ships, whereas younger children are so
are similar to Selman's notion of level 3 trust focused on the "here and now" that object
violation as a major source of conflict in older defense is uppermost in their minds.
children. To repair breaches of friendship
rules, the youngest children suggested rule- We turn now to a study in which social-
abiding actions: If one is "not nice," then one cognitive understanding was assessed by us-
becomes nice to repair the relation; if one ing videotaped episodes of an object dispute,
apologizes, so does the other. For older chil- and, importantly, in which the relation be-
dren, acting friendly does not repair the tween such social-cognitive functioning of
friendship: One has to acknowledge the viola- children and their actual object arguments
tion prior to reparative actions. Corroborating was examined. Dodge (1985) studied chil-
data on developmental changes in conflict dren's information processing of a videotape
concepts within friendship can be found in in which a child provokes another child by
Damon's (1977) writings. knocking over his or her building blocks. The
intention is varied to show it as hostile, proso-
We turn now to illustrative studies of social, benign, or ambiguous. The child is asked
cial-cognitive concepts and reasoning that are to imagine being the child whose blocks were
knocked over and then questioned about the measure is the total number of different strat-
interaction with the videotape stopped at ap- egies generated, the common ones for the
propriate points. In a later session, each child peer problem being to share, grab, take turns,
participated in a group-entry task (to be de- say "please," trade, wait, loan, or invoke au-
scribed later), in the course of which a provo- thority. The bulk of research on this issue-
cation occurred. One of the children in the but not all-appears to support the hy-
group was coached to knock over the subject's pothesis that the ability to generate
building ambiguously. Thus, in this study, it alternative strategies to settle object disputes
was not the possession of another's object but is related to the child's overall social adjust-
rather the ruin of it that was at issue. Children ment (see, for reviews, Krasnor & Rubin,
from grades 2 through 4 were participants, 48 1981; Rubin & Krasnor, 1985; Shantz, 1983).
of whom were in a treatment program for de-
Peer Group Entry Disputes
viancy and aggression, and 18 matched controls.
Children's goals in a hypothetical entry
Children's responses to the dramatized conflict were also investigated by Renshaw
object dispute were analyzed to assess five and Asher (1983) in the study described pre-
basic information-processing steps: (1) social viously. The situation presented to 8-12-year-
cue use, (2) interpreting cues, (3) generating olds was: "One free period you have nothing
strategies, (4) evaluating the likely outcomes to do. Then you see two children getting out a
of strategies, and (5) enacting strategies. Older game of Monopoly. You go over to them to
children in both groups, as compared to youn- play and they say, 'Hey, we didn't ask you' "
ger ones, showed more skill in accurately de- (p. 358). Children suggested, on the average,
tecting prosocial intentions, made fewer er- one or two goals for peer entry and several
rors of presumed hostility, and suggested strategies. Almost 60% suggested avoiding
more competent reactions to the provocation. the situation further, 37% offered positive ac-
Aggressive children of both ages, compared commodating strategies ("I'd ask them to
to controls, showed processing deficits at all show me how to play the game"), and 28%
five steps in the model. For example, they suggested a threat or verbal rebuke to pay
made less use of social cues, were less accu- back in kind. Renshaw and Asher recom-
rate in interpreting prosocial intentions, and mend that more study be made of the pro-
made more errors of presumed hostility. Fur- cesses that give rise to constructing goals in
ther, these processing variables were highly situations like object and entry disputes.
predictive of children's response to actual ob- Some of the factors that might be involved,
ject disputes (multiple R = .75), with steps 2 they speculate, are how one defines oneself
and 4 providing significant increments in pre- ("I'm a good person," "People can't push me
diction (e.g., interpretation of social cues, hos- around"), contextual knowledge about what is
tile misinterpretation of intent, and accuracy appropriate and relevant in a particular set-
in response evaluation). ting, and social-affective considerations such
as trust toward others. Likewise, children's
Finally, there is a large body of work by abilities to infer or attend to others' intentions
Spivack and Shure (1974; Shure, 1982) and
might well influence their goal setting, a fac-
others examining the relations between chil- tor to be discussed later.
dren's ability to solve hypothetical object dis-
putes and a much broader class of behavior- We return now to Dodge's (1985) re-
children's social adjustment. Specifically, search on information processing of social
preschool children were judged by their situations and its relation to actual social be-
teachers as highly inhibited, impulsive- havior. Two studies were conducted using a
aggressive, or of average adjustment. To as- prototypic peer-entry situation. In the first
sess social reasoning, the Preschool Interper- study, kindergartners, first graders, and sec-
sonal Problem-solving Test (PIPS) was ond graders were shown a film in which two
developed. In the first of two parts of the test, unfamiliar, same-age, same-gender children
the problem consists of one child wanting to are playing a game and a newcomer arrives.
play with a toy another child has; the second Each child was asked to imagine that she or
problem consists of avoiding mother's anger he was the newcomer. Several questions
after having damaged an object. The basic were posed (with the videotape stopped). For
question in the first dilemma is, "What can X example, prior to the filmed newcomer's en-
do to have a chance to play with the toy?" try bid being shown, the child was asked,
followed by encouragement to generate as "What could you do to get them to let you
many strategies as possible. The dependent play?"'9 Some days later each child took part
9 The videotape did not dramatize the group's response to the newcomer. It is likely that most
(with a new experimenter) in an actual group- staged social situations-needing help, an ob-
entry situation that was videotaped and ject dispute, and the implied exclusion of the
scored for strategy competence and success or newcomer. The latter was enacted as follows:
failure in joining the group. Confederate 1: "I want to play this game just
with you." Confederate 2: "Yeah, me too."
Using the five-step model of information
And both look at the newcomer. Then Con-
processing (described earlier), actual peer-
federate 1 says, "We're only kidding." Con-
group entry was found to be predictable from
federate 2: "Yeah, we like playing this game
three of the steps: 1, 3, and 4 (multiple R =
.58 with grade partialed out). Specifically,
with you" (pp. 1419-1420). The subjects
were b6ys between kindergarten graduation
more competent strategies, scored regardless
and first-grade enrollment. They were asked
of outcome, were related to more accurate cue
what the two boys in the film (the host group)
use and response evaluation and to several
were "doing here" and "What were you try-
aspects of strategy generation (fewer aggres-
ing to do here?" with appropriate stops of the
sive solutions, self-centered statements, and
tape for each of the three staged events. Inter-
passive strategies). All information-process-
estingly, the lowest proportion of children
ing variables were related also to behavioral
correctly identified rebuffby the hosts (5.5%),
success at entry (multiple R = .65).
somewhat more (29%) correctly identified
This study was replicated and extended help situations, and the most correctly
with children in grades 2 and 4 comparing identified object disputes (67%). Whether
clinically referred, highly aggressive children children this age are actually this incapable of
to matched controls (Dodge, 1985). Again, it recognizing social exclusion must await fur-
was found that information-processing vari- ther research. The low accuracy rate may be
ables were highly predictive of actual group due in part to resistance being coupled with
entry: entry competence (multiple R = .77) kidding, which made the situation ambigu-
and success (multiple R = .87). The highest ous as to whether the resistance was serious
correlations with entry competence occurred or playful teasing.
with cue interpretation, accuracy in evalua-
Finally, Lubin and Forbes (1980), in a
tion of responses, and self-description of be-
study of 5- and 7-year-olds, provide some cor-
havior. These same steps were also significant
roborating data. They investigated children's
correlates of entry success, and at about the
ability to infer another person's thoughts, feel-
same magnitude. In addition, older children
ings, and motives, and the ability to generate
expected that peers would be less receptive
strategies to solve common social problems
to their entry than did younger children.
(called "script knowledge"). These two so-
Group effects (aggressive vs. controls) were
cial-cognitive abilities are most similar to
found at steps 2 and 4: Aggressive children
Dodge's step 2, social cue interpretation, and
(regardless of age) were more likely than
step 3, strategy generation. First, Lubin and
nonaggressive children to expect that the peer Forbes found that these two abilities were
group would not want to play with them and
quite independent in this age range. Second,
were more likely to endorse passive and self-
they related the two social-cognitive abilities
centered strategies. In summary, these two
to actual peer-group entry of the children dur-
studies indicate that the various processing
ing free play over several weeks. Their data
variables possess major predictive power for
suggested that knowing many strategies most
actual entry behavior.
clearly differentiates children when they ini-
When the entry of young children is re- tially enter unfamiliar play groups, but, as
sisted, do they accurately perceive the resis- time goes on and they come to know the
tance? This question was addressed by Putal- peers, person inferences are most related to
laz (1983). To assess the accuracy of children's the group-entry situation. This raises the in-
perceptions about peers' opposition to entry, teresting possibility that the social-cognitive
she showed children videotapes of their own factors most closely involved in successful
prior attempts to enter a group, that is, the group entry may vary with the familiarity of
subject himself had been the newcomer. Sec- the children. It would not be unexpected that,
ond and third graders (confederates of the ex- in dealing with unfamiliar peers, a child who
perimenter) served as the host group. During can think of many different ways to solve
the course of the episode, they enacted three problems has more success, but as peers are
children viewing the film might anticipate some resistance given that about half of children's entry
bids actually meet with initial opposition, as described earlier in the article, and older children, at
least, expect to meet some resistance, as will be described later.
known as individuals the more relevant skill conflict. Sex differences also occurred in that
becomes the ability to make inferences about girls' conflicts tended to be about person-
them as individuals. control issues and boys' about object control.
The outcome of conflicts-success in
Children who had more highly devel-
oped abilities to make inferences about peo- winning one's confrontations-was also pre-
ple, Lubin and Forbes (1980) also found, dictable from the set of social-cognitive fac-
were those who most often responded to ac- tors. As such, the finding adds further evi-
tual group resistance by abandoning the goal dence that social competency, indexed by
to enter. Children low in person-inference solving social problems in one's favor (Ford,
skills as well as younger children (Forbes et 1982; Krasnor & Rubin, 1983), is related to
al., 1982) most often merely repeated their en- social conceptions. Finally, the strategies
try bids, either not recognizing, ignoring, or children used were less closely related to
distorting the negative feedback. The findings their social-cognitive functioning than were
of Dodge (1985), Forbes et al. (1982), and Lu- the issues of conflict and degree of success in
bin and Forbes (1980) suggest that, as chil- conflicts. This finding appears to be at odds
dren get older and have greater abilities to with the many indications, already described,
infer people's internal states, they become that social-cognitive functioning is related to
less optimistic about receiving a ready wel- tactics in object disputes and group entry. In
come by the peer group. this case, strategies were summed over all
goals, and this may account for the low corre-
Multiple Types of Peer Conflicts lation, that is, tactics are most meaningfully
A broader range of conflict problems are studied in relation to particular goals, not
considered now-both object use and person across goals (e.g., Krasnor & Rubin, 1983).
control (including peer-group entry). The Summary
central question is the degree to which social-
Children as participants in conflict reveal
cognitive functioning is or is not related to
an impressive degree of knowledge about so-
different specific aspects of conflict: the is- cial rules, people's intentions, and social strat-
sues of conflict, the strategies employed, and/
egies. Equally important, the research dem-
or the outcomes. Shantz and Shantz (1982, onstrates that children are responsive to their
1985) investigated this question in a study of adversary during conflict, as shown by the se-
eight after-school free play groups of 6- and 7-
quential dependencies in moves within epi-
year-olds. There were 12 children in each of sodes that have been identified in several
the four boy groups and four girl groups. studies. This research thus provides a direct
Their free play was videotaped during their and clear view of social processes at work as
weekly sessions for 10 weeks, yielding a total children negotiate their oppositions to one an-
of 1,646 conflicts over objects and person con- other.
trol.
Studies of social-cognitive abilities as-
Three aspects of social-cognitive func- sessed in hypothetical situations (i.e., outside
tioning were assessed that were presumed to the conflict) not only confirm some of the
be of importance in children's conflict behav- findings above but suggest developmental
ior: the developmental levels of conceptualiz- changes in how children think about conflict
ing persons, social rules, and conflict resolu- and its resolution (especially with friends),
tion strategies. Multiple regression analyses their likely interpersonal goals in specific
revealed that the issues children got into con- situations, their strategies, and their proclivity
flict about could be predicted from the social- to make inferences about persons. Further,
cognitive variables. One particular measure some studies have linked social-cognitive
was most highly related: The more advanced abilities to children's success in actual conflict
the child's person conceptions were, the less situations. How success is conceptualized
often proportionally the child was involved in and measured differs among studies, and
person control conflicts. That could mean that justifiably so, given the value judgments im-
advanced children were sufficiently insightful plicit in any definition. Success has been
about people that they were aware of how measured variously as the conflict being re-
difficult it is to control their behavior, and solved, the (target) child's goal prevailing, the
therefore seldom-relatively speaking-got peer group's overall liking of the target child
into behavior control disputes. Another possi- (e.g., popular), or as general relations with
bility is that children advanced in person con- peers (e.g., inhibited, adjusted). Future re-
cepts do try to control others' behavior and search may determine which social-cognitive
are sufficiently skilled that their attempts are skills are more important in conflict activity
seldom opposed; that is, they largely avoid than others.
The two major perspectives in conflict re- tions during and after disputes are uncharted
search- sociolinguistics and developmental areas.
social cognition-are yielding rich and in- Second, conflicts, for children, are social
triguing pictures of children's social-cognitive problems. What social learning occurs as con-
functioning. The sociolinguistic approach flicts are resolved, stalemated, escalated, or
provides a picture of social cognition-in- abandoned? We have virtually no data to
action, that is, knowing how to operate in the
answer this question except what can be
social world (or not knowing how). On the
inferred from children's ongoing talk and
other hand, the cognitive-developmental trad-
actions during conflicts. It might be en-
ition provides a sense of children knowing lightening to study directly children's percep-
about their social world (or, again, not know-
tions and conceptions of the conflicts in
ing about it). Not surprisingly, the pictures
which they participate (and those they ob-
emerging from these research traditions only
serve) to determine what conflicts mean to
partially overlap. Whether there are theoreti- those involved. To what extent, for example,
cally critical differences emerging from these
two traditions will become clearer in future
do children construe messages about them-
selves as individuals, about specific peers, or
research.
about conflict behavior in general (e.g., what
"works" in winning contests). Such inquiry
Implications and Future Directions may begin to link the research traditions of
The study of conflicts between children sociolinguistics, social development, and so-
holds substantial potential for understanding cial cognitive development.
the processes of social development and, as The study of social behavior need not be
such, putting developmental theories to test restricted to social learning questions. Many
concerning the long-term benefits and haz- social and cognitive theories of development
ards of social conflict in everyday life. Some posit a close, interactive relation between
of the potential in studying conflict will be social and cognitive development, between
outlined next, first for individuals, then for dy- interpersonal and intrapersonal processes.
ads, and finally for social groups. Indeed, Baldwin, Piaget, and Vygotsky spec-
Individual Level ulated about the social origins of thought, as
Individuals who are in conflict tell us did Mead (1934): "We must regard mind...
what is important to them by the types of as arising and developing within the social
goals they pursue, by their resistance to par- process, within the empirical matrix of social
ticular goals and actions of others, and by interactions" (p. 133). Piaget, in particular, as
their persistence in reaching their goals. That noted at the outset of this article, stressed
is, the issues of conflict provide one useful peer conflict as fostering cognitive conflict,
index of various goals that are socially signifi- which serves, he thought, as a major impetus
cant from the child's viewpoint (even though to cognitive development. Some recent evi-
observers may think, at times, that certain is- dence (e.g., Berkowitz, 1985) documents the
sues are trivial, misguided, or not in the child's relation between social conflict and psycho-
best interest). Further, the ways children try logical development (especially moral rea-
to achieve their goals reflect the organization soning development), albeit not in every case
of their behavior. The interplay among antiso- (e.g., Damon & Killen, 1982).
cial and prosocial behaviors can be revealed, Dyadic Level
a possibility that is foreclosed when single Some enduring issues in psychology may
types of behavior are studied in isolation, as be addressed by the study of conflictual dy-
was often the case with aggression, and more ads. For example, to what extent is a child's
recently with prosocial behavior. behavior dependent upon or independent of
Issues, strategies, and outcomes are three the "partner's" behavior? There is evidence,
aspects of conflict that have proven to be par- as reported in this review, of some important
ticularly revealing of processes of social in- dependencies. For example, children frame
teraction. Other aspects of conflict also de- their responses to an accuser depending on
serve study. First, for example, one might ask, the type of accusation-that is, whether they
What kinds of affect do children experience have violated a moral rule or a conventional
and display during conflict? Curiously, little one (Much & Shweder, 1978). Likewise, the
attention has been given to children's arousal, strategies one child uses in conflict are often
to their anger or glee during adversative epi- related to strategies used by the other child
sodes. Except for some hints in the work of (e.g., Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; Walton &
Camras (1977, 1984), Dawe (1934), and Sedlak, 1982). And some aspects of conflict
Houseman (1972), children's moods and emo- behavior, such as starting a quarrel, appear to
be more a matter of the individual's disposi- Group Level
tion-at least among toddlers-than is yield- Developmental theories provide little
ing, which seems to depend more on who the guidance on how to conceptualize the social
partner is (Hay & Ross, 1982). These latter environment of children, its structure and
findings on starting conflicts and yielding "information points." Perhaps because these
echo the long controversy concerning the de- theories are addressed more to the intrapsy-
gree to which behavior is dispositional and chic functioning of the developing child,
traitlike or is situationally determined (Mi- there is little systematic detailing of the social
schel, 1973). The comparison of behavior environment and the interaction between that
within a particular dyad and across dyads can environment and the organism, despite mac-
inform our understanding of this issue. rotheoretical statements of the importance of
that interaction.
One basic aspect of peer relationships is
children's liking and disliking of one another, The study of conflict may be a means of
within dyads (being friends or enemies) and entering social systems to reveal the structure
within groups (being popular or rejected). of social contexts of development. This possi-
Conflicts would seem to pose a threat to bility is based on the notion that most non-
mutual liking, especially if one holds the conflictual states between individuals (be-
common view, as Hocker and Wilmot (1985) tween children, between children and their
found, of conflict as almost a totally negative parents) depend to an important extent on the
phenomenon. One might expect, then, that participants having shared goals, expecta-
friends have fewer or less serious conflicts. tions, rules and values, or at least having com-
But from the small amount of evidence avail- patible ones. For the young child, many of
able, this does not appear to be the case. these expectations, rules, and the like are un-
Green (1933) found that among preschoolers known or only tacitly known. It is at the mo-
"mutual friends are more quarrelsome, and ment when the child's behavior runs counter
mutual quarrelers are more friendly than the to the group's goals and expectations that the
average" (p. 251). More recently, Gottman (in system is explicitly revealed. That is, conflict
press) identified conflicts and their resolution is a perturbation in an otherwise shared
as basic processes in children's friendships system of relationships. Although some
(see also Oden, Wheeler, & Herzberger, "counter" behavior is ignored, the group re-
1984). But there is much to be learned still sponds to that which violates matters of im-
about friendship and quarreling. For ex- portance to the group, matters concerning the
ample, do conflicts between friends differ rights and welfare of individuals and of the
qualitatively from those between merely ac- group, and conventions that help maintain so-
quainted children? What is the role of conflict cial order and protect the group's sensibilities
in establishing, maintaining, and dissolving (e.g., for preschoolers, admonitions that "sand
friendships at different ages? is to stay in the sandbox," "spaghetti is not
eaten with one's fingers," or "boys don't wear
Another apparently reasonable expecta- girls' clothes" [Smetana, 1984]).
tion concerning liking among children-to
move briefly to the group level-is that chil- Conflicts between children and adults,
dren who are often physically aggressive to- then, can be viewed as indices of important
ward other children are likely to be actively socializing communications (or "cultural con-
disliked (or, sociometrically, "rejected") by trol messages"; Much and Shweder, 1978).
most group members. Hartup (1983) con- Indeed, Maccoby and Martin (1983), after re-
cluded from his review of the research, how- viewing the extensive literature on parent-
ever, that "the role of physical aggression (in child relationships, proposed that families be
social acceptance and rejection) ... is not en- studied in terms of conflict. Specifically, they
tirely clear" (p. 135) because, he found, suggest a two-dimensional model of conflict:
fighting was not a correlate of rejection across the frequency with which conflicts occur (low
studies but indirect aggression and "negative frequency indexing shared goals) and the out-
behavior" was. There is some recent evi- comes (whether parents' goals prevail, child's
dence (D. Shantz, in press) that rejected status goals, or a negotiated balancing of goals).
is more directly related to the rate of conflict Such an approach to family functioning might
than it is to aggression per se. This suggests well enrich our understanding of disciplinary
that it is the contentious child-one who strategies and parental roles vis-a-vis the child
starts disputes frequently, quarrels with many by providing a process view of the mutual
different children, and who may or may not adaptation of parents and children. The re-
use aggressive tactics-whom group mem- cent surge of interest in the family and its
bers are prone to dislike. subsystems has included a number of studies
(e.g., Crockenberg, 1985; Dunn & Munn, What needs to be directly addressed is the
1985; Holden, 1983; Kendrick & Dunn, 1983) question raised by many developmental theo-
focused specifically on parent-child and sib- ries: What are the roles of social conflict in
ling conflicts (see Example 1, Appendix). In- children's development?
terestingly, the view that parents exert unilat-
eral influence on their children still pre-
dominates in research. How children's pro- Appendix
tests contribute to "socializing" parents is still
seldom addressed (see Minuchin, 1985). Illustrative Conflicts from
The sheer frequency of conflicts, how- Verbatim Records
ever, may not be the "index of choice" when
studying families or groups. For example,
Mother-Child
families in which members interact a great
deal are likely, as a by-product, to have higher Example 1.-Child (18 months) pulls mother's
hair hard. Mother: "Don't pull my hair! Madam!
frequencies of conflict than do low-interactive
Don't pull hair. No. It's not nice to pull hair, is it?"
families. Likewise, when conflicts predomi- Child: "Hair." Mother: "Hair yes, but you mustn't
nate (whatever the amount of interaction), the pull it, must you?" Child: "Yes!" (smiles) Mother:
effects are likely to be negative in general. "No! No!" Child: "No!" Mother: "No. No. It's not
The effects of conflicts may be less negative if kind to pull hair, is it?" Child: "Nice!" Mother:
they occur along with many agreeable in- "No, it isn't." Child: "Nice!" [Dunn & Munn, 1985,
teractions. Gottman (in press) has recently p. 491]
suggested that agreement-to-disagreement
ratios be used instead of or in conjunction Preschool Children
with rates of disagreements. Such ratios, Gott- Example 2.-Jane and Harry playing near
man states, have proved to be particularly clothing rack. Harry says, "I'm a pirate; I'm gonna
sensitive discriminators between distressed marry you." Jane hits her hand against the bookcase
and nondistressed families and married cou- and says, "You have to be a prince; if I'm a queen,
ples, and of children's behavior with friends you have to be a prince." Harry says, "No, I'm a
pirate." Jane says, "Then I'm going, I'm not going
versus strangers.
to marry you." [Houseman, 1972, p. 165]
A distinction in types of conflicts also
may be useful in understanding adversative Example 3.-Jason and Ted working puzzles.
Jason finishes his puzzle and says, "Look, Ted, now
relationships. Deutsch (1973), for example,
I can help you." He turns toward Ted. Ted sur-
proposed differentiating between "destruc-
rounds his puzzle with his arms, saying, "No, don't
tive" and "constructive" conflicts. The former
help me. I can do this." After a few minutes Jason
are those that expand beyond the primary is- stands, leans over, and says, "No not right there, put
sue to related issues, escalate through the use that over there." He pushes a puzzle piece on Ted's
of threats and coercive strategies, and end in puzzle. Ted picks up a piece from the table and
dissatisfaction of both parties; constructive says, "Don't help me," trying to take the piece from
conflicts, on the other hand, stay focused on Jason's hand. Jason pulls his hand back. Ted stands
the main issue as both parties engage in prob- up and says, "Don't help me," louder than before.
lem solving and end in a mutually satisfying Jason still has the piece and says, "I'll put it right
there." He places the piece in the puzzle. Ted:
outcome (i.e., the differences are resolved, or,
"Don't help me!" He is pulling Jason's hand away.
if they are not resolved, each person accepts Under his breath he says, "I'll help myself," and
the differences). By examining these two puts a piece in the puzzle. Jason says, "That don't
types of conflicts, we may begin to clarify the go there." Ted turns the puzzle piece. Jason points
form and functions of aggression as it occurs and says, "This one go there." Ted keeps working;
within conflicts, and particularly to reveal the sits back down. [Houseman, 1972, p. 167]
immediate and long-term effects of these
types of conflicts on social relationships. Example 4.-A: "That's mine." (Approaches
partner B who has started to play with truck.) B:
Finally, the study of children's conflicts "This is not. No." (Moves truck.) A: "It's mine."
has been a remarkably interdisciplinary en- (Stands, looking down at partner and truck.) B:
terprise, emanating primarily from psychol- "Well, I'm using it. I'm using it." A: "Could I take
ogy, linguistics, sociology, and communica- it home?" B: "No, it's the school's." A: "Yes, I am
tion. These various perspectives on conflict take it home." B: "You don't have a house, you live
here." A: "No, I live at home, Lake Charles Av-
have contributed to the rich descriptions of
the forms and processes of conflict and their enue." B: "Well, I'm using that. I'm using it." A:
"Could I take that home?" B: "Yes, okay." (But
relation to children's social-cognitive func- doesn't relinquish the truck.) A: "Could I take that
tioning. In addition, the enterprise has been home?" (Speaks more softly than before.) B: "Okay,
largely descriptive rather than theory-driven. but/but/but I'm using it." (Turns away from A.) "I'll
give it to you when you're gonna go." (Continues to Bronson, W. C. (1975). Developments in behavior
play with truck. A moves away from B.) [Garvey, with age mates during the second year of life.
1984, p. 128, with references to A and B added] In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.),
Friendship and peer relations (pp. 131-152).
Six- and Seven-Year-Olds10 New York: Wiley.
Example 5.-Julie starts to put a block on pile.
Amy: "No!" (Puts her hand over blocks) "You can't Brownlee, J. R., & Bakeman, R. (1981). Hitting in
build to this." Julie: (Puts block on pile and looks at toddler peer interaction. Child Development,
Amy) Amy: (Takes block off) "No, you can't build 52, 1076-1079.
to that." Julie: "Yes you can." Amy: (Puts her own Camras, L. A. (1977). Facial expressions used by
blocks on the pile) "No, you can't." Julie: "Uh children in a conflict situation. Child Develop-
huh." (Meaning yes you can) (Picks up block) Amy: ment, 48, 1431-1435.
"Wait!" Julie: "No!" (Puts block on pile, pile falls Camras, L. A. (1980). Children's understanding of
over and they both laugh, and play together.) facial expressions used during conflict encoun-
ters. Child Development, 51, 879-885.
Example 6.-Luke: (Threatening motion to-
Camras, L. A. (1984). Children's verbal and nonver-
ward Bobby to throw Play-Doh at him) Bobby: (No
bal communication in a conflict situation.
response) Luke: (Shakes arm in air threateningly)
Bobby: "I'm just not gonna pay attention." Luke: Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 257-268.
(Gestures threateningly again) Bobby: (No re- Charlesworth, W. R. (1979). Ethology: Understand-
sponse) Luke: (Gestures threateningly again) ing the other half of intelligence. In M. von
Bobby: (No response) Luke: (Throws Play-Doh at Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog
Bobby) "Watch it, dum-dum." Bobby: (Flinches (Eds.), Human ethology (pp. 491-529). Cam-
slightly) Luke: (Picks up Play-Doh from floor and bridge: Cambridge University Press.
throws it at Bobby and hits him) Bobby: (Picks up
Corsaro, W. A. (1979). "We're friends, right?": Chil-
Play-Doh from floor under table and threatens to
dren's use of access rituals in a nursery school.
throw it at Luke) Luke: (Moves out of area) Bobby:
(Throws Play-Doh at Luke and crawls under the Language in Society, 8, 315-336.
table) Luke: (Returns to area with Play-Doh and Corsaro, W. A. (1981). Friendship in the nursery
throws it at Bobby and hits him) (Adult intervenes) school: Social organization in a peer environ-
ment. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.),
Example 7.-John: "I'm on your team, Luke." The development of children's friendships (pp.
Luke: "No, you're not." John: "Yes ... I ... my guy 207-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University
is.. ." Luke: "Unh uh." (Meaning no) "You're not Press.
playing with us." John: "I know I am too." Luke:
Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict.
"So you can't play. No, you're not." John: (No re- New York: Free Press.
sponse) Luke: "But you're not playing." John: "Yes
I am!" Luke: "Unh huh." (Meaning no) "Don't Crockenberg, S. (1985). Toddlers' reactions to ma-
talk." (John leaves area; doesn't play with Luke and ternal anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31,
others) 361-373.
Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child.

References San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1982). Social rules and the process of change in children's moral
governing object conflicts in toddlers and pre- reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347-
schoolers. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), 367.
Peer relationships and social skills in child- Dawe, H. C. (1934). An analysis of two hundred
hood (pp. 99-111). New York: Springer-Verlag. quarrels of preschool children. Child Develop-
Berkowitz, M. W. (Ed.). (1985). Peer conflict and ment, 5, 139-157.
psychological growth: New directions for child Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Boggs, S. T. (1978). The development of verbal dis- Dodge, K. A. (1985). A social information process-
puting in part-Hawaiian children. Language in ing model of social competence in children. In
Society, 7, 325-344. M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on
Brenneis, D., & Lein, L. (1977). "You fruithead": A child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-126). Hills-
sociolinguistic approach to children's dispute dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell- Dodge, K. A., Schlundt, D. C., Schocken, I., & De-
Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 49-65). lugach, J. D. (1983). Social competence and
New York: Academic Press. children's sociometric status: The role of peer
Brenner, J., & Mueller, E. (1982). Shared meaning group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
in boy todddlers' peer relations. Child Devel- terly, 29, 309-336.
opment, 53, 380-391. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family
1o Shantz & Shantz (1982). Verbatim observational records from videotapes of free play.
member: Family conflict and the development personal conflicts among preschool children.
of social understanding in the second year. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne
Child Development, 56, 480-492. State University, Detroit. (University Micro-
Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's films No. 73-12533)
use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Kendrick, C., & Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling quarrels
Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170. and maternal responses. Developmental Psy-
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. chology, 19, 62-70.
Psychological Issues, Monograph 1. New York: Krasnor, L. R., & Rubin, K. (1981). Assessment of
International Universities Press. social problem-solving in young children. In T.
Forbes, D. L., Katz, M. M., Paul, B., & Lubin, D. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cogni-
(1982). Children's plans for joining play: An tive assessment (pp. 452-476). New York:
analysis of structure and function. In D. L. Guilford.
Forbes & M. T. Greenberg (Eds.), Children's Krasnor, L. R., & Rubin, K. H. (1983). Preschool
planning strategies: New directions for child social problem solving: Attempts and out-
development (pp. 61-79). San Francisco: Jos- comes in naturalistic interaction. Child Devel-
sey-Bass. opment, 54, 1545-1558.
Ford, M. E. (1982). Social cognition and social com- Levin, E. A., & Rubin, K. H. (1983). Getting others
petence in adolescents. Developmental Psy- to do what you want them to do: Development
chology, 18, 323-340. of children's requestive strategies. In K. E.
Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. Cambridge, Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (Vol. 4, pp.
MA: Harvard University Press. 157-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Genishi, C., & DiPaolo, M. (1982). Learning Lubin, D. A., & Forbes, D. (1980). Structure and
through argument in a preschool. In L. C. Wil- sequence in social development: Overview of
kinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom results from the first three years of the peer
(pp. 49-68). New York: Academic Press. interaction project. Unpublished interim re-
Gottman, J. M. (in press). The observation of social port to the National Institute of Mental Health.
process. In J. M. Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socializa-
Conversations of friends: Speculations on af- tion in the context of the family: Parent-child
fective development. New York: Cambridge interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H.
University Press. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
Green, E. H. (1933). Friendships and quarrels chology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and
among preschool children. Child Develop- social development, 4th ed. (pp. 1-101). New
ment, 4, 237-252. York: Wiley.
Hall, C. S. (1954). A primer of Freudian psychol- Maudry, M., & Nekula, M. (1939). Social relations
ogy. New York: World. between children of same age during the first
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. two years of life. Journal of Genetic Psychol-
Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), ogy, 54, 193-215.
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Social- Maynard, D. W. (1985). How children start argu-
ization, personality, and social development, ments. Language in Society, 14, 1-29.
4th ed. (pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society.
Hay, D. F. (1984). Social conflict in early childhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child devel- Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual devel-
opment (Vol. 1, pp. 1-44). Greenwich, CT: opment: Provocations from the field of family
JAI. therapy. Child Development, 56, 289-302.
Hay, D. F., Nash, A., & Pedersen, J. (1983). Interac- Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learn-
tion between six-month-old peers. Child De- ing reconceptualization of personality. Psycho-
velopment, 54, 557-562. logical Review, 80, 252-283.
Hay, D. F., & Ross, H. S. (1982). The social nature Much, N. C., & Shweder, R. A. (1978). Speaking of
of early conflict. Child Development, 53, 105- rules: The analysis of culture in breach. In W.
113. Damon (Ed.), Moral development: New direc-
Hinde, R. A. (1976). On describing relationships. tions for child development (pp. 19-39). San
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17, 1-19. Oden, S., Wheeler, V. A., & Herzberger, S. D.
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Interper- (1984). Children's conversations within a con-
sonal conflict (2d ed.). Dubuque, IA: William flict-of-interest situation. In W. E. Sypher & J.
C. Brown. L. Applegate (Eds.), Understanding interper-
Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conflict: Mothers sonal communication: Social cognitive and
as tacticians in the supermarket. Child Devel- strategic processes in children and adults (pp.
opment, 54, 233-240. 129-151). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Houseman, J. (1972). An ecological study of inter- O'Keefe, B. J., & Benoit, P. J. (1982). Children's
arguments. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Peer conflict and psychological growth: New
Advances in argumentation theory and re- directions for child development (pp. 3-21).
search (pp. 154-183). Carbondale: Southern Il- San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
linois University Press. Shantz, D. W. (1981, April). Children's fights: The
O'Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument relationship between winning, the use of ag-
and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard gression, and whether one is invading or de-
(Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and fending. Paper presented at the biennial meet-
research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Il- ing of the Society for Research in Child Devel-
linois University Press. opment, Boston.
Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The develop- Shantz, D. W. (in press). Conflict, aggression, and
ment of aggression. In E. M. Hetherington peer status: An observational study. Child De-
(Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of velopment.
child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, person- Shantz, D. W., & Schomer, J. (1977, March). Inter-
ality, and social development, 4th ed. (pp. personal conflict in preschoolers: A natu-
547-641). New York: Wiley. ralistic study. Paper presented at the fifth bien-
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the nial meeting of the Southeast Regional
child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Development, Atlanta.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Shantz, D. W., & Shantz, C. U. (1982, August). Con-
Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children's socio- flicts between children and social-cognitive de-
metric status from their behavior. Child Devel- velopment. Paper presented at the annual
opment, 54, 1417-1426. meeting of the American Psychological Associ-
Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. (1981). An interactional ation, Washington, DC.
model of children's entry into peer groups. Shure, M. B. (1982). Interpersonal problem solving:
Child Development, 52, 986-994. A cog in the wheel of social cognition. In F. C.
Renshaw, P. D., & Asher, S. R. (1983). Children's Serafica (Ed.), Social-cognitive development in
goals and strategies for social interaction. Mer- context (pp. 133-166). New York: Guilford.
rill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 353-374. Sluckin, A. M., & Smith, P. K. (1977). Two ap-
Riegel, K. (1976). The dialectics of human develop- proaches to the concept of dominance in pre-
ment. American Psychologist, 31, 689-700. school children. Child Development, 48, 917-
Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1985). Social- 933.
cognitive and social behavioral perspectives on Smetana, J. G. (1984). Toddlers' social interactions
problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Min- regarding moral and conventional transgres-
nesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. sions. Child Development, 55, 1767-1776.
18, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjust-
Sackin, S., & Thelen, E. (1984). An ethological ment of young children: A cognitive approach
study of peaceful associative outcomes to con- to solving real life problems. San Francisco:
flict in preschool children. Child Development, Jossey-Bass.
55, 1098-1102. Stagner, R. (Ed.). (1967). The dimensions of human
Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal conflict. Detroit: Wayne State University
understanding: Developmental and clinical Press.
analyses. New York: Academic Press. Strayer, F. F., & Strayer, J. (1976). An ethological
Selman, R. (1981). The child as a friendship philos- analysis of social agonism and dominance rela-
opher. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.), tions among preschool children. Child Devel-
The development of children's friendships (pp. opment, 47, 980-989.
242-272). New York: Cambridge University Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of
Press. psychology. New York: Norton.
Selman, R., & Demorest, A. P. (1984). Observing Walton, M. D., & Sedlak, A. J. (1982). Making
troubled children's interpersonal negotiation amends: A grammar-based analysis of chil-
strategies: Implications of and for a develop- dren's social interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
mental model. Child Development, 55, 288- terly, 28, 389-412.
304. Weigel, R. M. (1984). The application of evolution-
Shantz, C. U. (1983). Social cognition. In J. H. ary models to the study of decisions made by
Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), P. H. Mussen children during object possession conflicts.
(Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 229-238.
Vol. 3. Cognitive development, 4th ed. (pp. Youniss, J., & Volpe, J. (1978). A relational analysis
495-555). New York: Wiley. of children's friendship. In W. Damon (Ed.),
Shantz, C. U., & Shantz, D. W. (1985). Conflict be- Social cognition: New directions for child de-
tween children: Social-cognitive and socio- velopment (pp. 1-22). San Francisco: Jossey-
metric correlates. In M. W. Berkowitz (Ed.), Bass.

Wiley, Society For Research in Child Development Child Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiley, Society For Research in Child Development Child Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts between Children

Author(s): Carolyn Uhlinger Shantz

Conflicts between Children

Carolyn Uhlinger Shantz

Tactics and Strategies and/or verbal aggression occurs in a small per-

Social-Cognitive Functioning ture interactions but is rather a primitive "out

Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child.

You might also like