Psychological Bulletin1994, Vol. 115, No. 2, 197-209

Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-2909/94/S3.00

Interpersonal Conflict During Adolescence

Brett Laursen and W. Andrew Collins

Interpersonal conflict is considered within various frameworks of adolescent development. Conflict,denned as behavioral opposition, is distinguished from related constructs. Differences between ado-lescent relationships and across age groups are reviewed in the incidence and intensity, resolution,and outcome of conflict. Influences of setting on conflict behaviors and effects are emphasized. Theevidence does not reveal dramatic shifts in conflict behavior as a function of age or maturation.Consistent differences do emerge, however, when adolescent relationships and conflict settings areconsidered. It is argued that a social relational model based on principles of interdependence andequity provides an alternative to psychoanalytic, sociobiological, and cognitive-developmental ac-counts of conflict behavior during adolescence.

Both formal theory and popular wisdom portray adolescenceas a period of heightened interpersonal conflict. Although con-temporary formulations are somewhat at odds with commonviews of adolescence as a period of disrupted personal and socialbehavior, the stereotype persists (Collins & Repinski, in press;Steinberg, 1990). In this review, we examine the pervasivenessof conflict in social relationships and its implications for indi-viduals within various models of adolescent development, plac-ing particular emphasis on a social relational perspective thathas its origins in equity theory.

In a seminal review of peer conflict, Shantz (1987) demon-strated that conflict can and should be distinguished from ag-gression, dominance, competition, influence, and anger. An em-pirically based definition of conflict can be objectively assessed;each of its temporally distinct components can be analyzed sep-arately and in interrelation with other components. Althoughwidely applied in most areas of interpersonal conflict (seeShantz & Hartup, 1992), this differentiated approach has beenused only sporadically in the study of adolescent social relation-ships.

Increased attention to definitional and temporal featuresclarifies the developmental significance of conflict. Previously,we highlighted the role of conflict within adolescent relation-ships, detailing multiple features of conflict events (Collins &Laursen, 1992). In the present review, we examine conflict inthe larger context of adolescent development. Does interper-sonal conflict during adolescence have distinctive characteris-tics and special significance for development?

We begin by reviewing prevailing models of adolescent devel-opment. A key thesis is that social relational theories, whichposit continuity and gradual transformation in conflict behav-ior, provide an alternative to prevailing views of adolescent de-

Brett Laursen, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic Univer-sity; W. Andrew Collins, Institute of Child Development, University ofMinnesota.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to BrettLaursen, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 2912College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314.

velopment. Psychoanalytic, sociobiological, and cognitive-de-velopmental accounts stress age-related differences and mini-mize the contribution of relationships and contexts; variationin conflict behavior is considered to be the result of individualmaturation. Social relational perspectives postulate behavioraldifferences in adolescent conflict as a function of settings andcharacteristics of the dyad; age is not considered a primarysource of variation in adolescent conflict behavior.

The review is divided into four sections. In the first, conflictis defined and discussed with reference to conceptual and meth-odological issues. In the second, psychoanalytic, sociobiologi-cal, cognitive-developmental, and social relational models arereviewed as they apply to adolescent conflict behavior. The thirdsection describes representative research detailing differencesbetween adolescent relationships and across age groups. Con-flict incidence and intensity, resolutions, and outcomes are dis-cussed within each of the theoretical frameworks advanced. Thefinal section offers a comprehensive interpretation of researchon adolescent conflict. Contextual considerations are high-lighted and their implications discussed.

Conflict: Its Nature and Significance

The characteristics and salience of conflicts are determinedby their relative rate of occurrence and the responses that theyevoke. After defining conflict and distinguishing it from relatedconstructs, three components of conflict with special signifi-cance to adolescent development are highlighted.

Definitional Issues

Interpersonal conflict may be characterized as a state of in-compatible behaviors (Shantz, 1987), disagreement (Garvey,1984), and opposition (Hay, 1984). Among scholars in the field,a consensus has emerged around overt behavioral opposition asa central definitional feature (Shantz & Hartup, 1992). Thestructure of conflict, however, continues to be debated. Somehold that conflict requires only a single instance of opposition(Garvey, 1984; Hay, 1984): A's behavior provokes an objectionor refusal from B (A -* B). This two-event or unilateral defini-

197

198 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

tion has been challenged on grounds that a single opposition isa necessary but not sufficient condition for conflict (Maynard,1985; Shantz, 1987; Shantz & Hobart, 1989). In the alternateview, conflict is a dyadic state of mutual opposition encom-passing a minimum of three events: A responds to B's initialobjection by persisting in the original behavior or offeringcounteropposition (A -*• B -»• A). Unilateral definitions of con-flict encompass more episodes than do mutual ones, becauseapproximately one of three initial oppositions do not meet withcontinued resistance (Laursen & Hartup, 1989; Vuchinich,1987). For the sake of inclusivity, a unilateral definition of con-flict is adopted. Our intent is to review studies that define con-flict as the presence of behavioral opposition, regardless of thenumber of exchanges.

Oppositional definitions offer several advantages to research-ers. One is that instances of disagreement can be examined in-dependent of negative affect, which may or may not be present.Questionnaires and interviews tend to conflate anger, fighting,and quarreling with conflict (Hill, 1988). Similar problemsarise when subjects are asked to recall conflicts over an extendedperiod of time, such as the past 2 weeks (e.g., Silverberg &Steinberg, 1987; Steinberg, 1987, 1988), few weeks (e.g., Hill,1988; Hill & Holmbeck, 1987), month (e.g., Prinz, Foster, Kent,& O'Leary, 1979; Robin & Foster, 1984), or all that can be rec-ollected (e.g., Smetana, 1989). Angry conflicts are more salientand, thus, more likely to be remembered than the garden vari-ety type. Both expansive time frames for recollection and affec-tively charged definitions tend to underestimate the incidenceof actual disagreement (Collins & Laursen, 1992).

A second advantage of defining conflict in terms of oppositionis to distinguish it from competition and aggression. Competi-tion for rewards does not, in and of itself, constitute conflict.Neither does aggression, a term referring to behaviors aimed atharming another person. Whereas intentional harm typicallyarises within conflicts, most disagreements do not involve ag-gression (Shantz, 1987). Similarly, although competition some-times produces conflict, not all disagreements concern the dis-tribution of rewards (Hartup & Laursen, 1993). Thus, con-structs of competition and aggression are distinct from, butoverlap with, conflict.

A third advantage of an oppositional definition is the abilityto distinguish conflict from influence and dominance, an areaof particular concern for researchers focusing on adolescence.Speech interruptions have often been equated with conflict.This practice has been criticized because interruptions maymark participant familiarity, excitement, or conversational pat-terns rather than disagreement (Hill, 1988). In families with ad-olescent girls, for instance, interruptions occur almost twice asoften as disagreements (Holmbeck & Hill, 1991). Despite evi-dence that interruptions mark influence (see Steinberg, 1981;Steinberg & Hill, 1978), both must be viewed apart from con-flict.

An oppositional definition offers greater uniformity in oper-ational definitions of conflict. To date, measures have beenfraught with irregularities that make it difficult to determinewhether inconsistent results are the product of unreliable phe-nomena or of method variation. A common measurement met-ric cannot cure these ills, but it is a step in the right direction.

Several recent studies with oppositional definitions of conflictprovide examples for future investigators. Observational tech-niques may be adapted from naturalistic studies of conflictamong family members (Vuchinich, 1987) and between youngchildren (Hartup, Laursen, Stewart, & Eastenson, 1988). In-terviews and questionnaires have been devised that incorporateoppositional definitions; subjects may be asked to recall all dis-agreements from the previous day (a time frame that improvesrecollection accuracy) with the aid of timetables (Montemayor& Hanson, 1985) or lists of conflict issues (Laursen, in press-b).

An oppositional definition of conflict is particularly consis-tent with social relational research traditions. That is, scholarsin fields with origins in social psychology and social learningtheory have traditionally emphasized readily observable andquantifiable events. Because imagined and intrapsychic con-flicts, staples of psychoanalytic and cognitive-developmental re-search, do not qualify as overt disagreements, they are not con-sidered in this review. Excluding internal events neither altersthe overall pattern of research on interpersonal oppositionalconflict nor precludes the possibility that introspective episodesplay a role in development. It does, however, eliminate much ofthe ambiguity surrounding the extant literature on adolescentconflict.

Components of Conflict

Shantz (1987) characterized conflict as a "time-distributedsocial episode" with several distinct features, including inci-dence and intensity (frequency and affective "heat" of a con-flict), the issue (conflict topic), initiation and opposition (behav-iors that start a conflict), the resolution (behaviors that concludea conflict), and the outcome (aftermath of a conflict). Like a playor novel, a conflict follows a plot or organized sequence, with aprotagonist and antagonist (conflict participants), theme (con-flict issue), complication (initial opposition), rising action, cli-max, crisis (conflict resolution), and denouement (outcome).

These components represent distinct but interrelated fea-tures of conflict events. An undue focus on only one featuredistorts and misrepresents the characteristics and functions ofconflict. Yet, for the most part, investigators have concentratedon the frequency of disagreement during adolescence, despitegrowing evidence that this provides only limited insight into thesignificance of conflict to individuals and relationships (Perry,Perry, & Kennedy, 1992). Level of negative affect and resolutionstrategy are but two components that predict the effects of con-flict better than disagreement rate or frequency (Gottman,1979; Laursen & Hartup, 1989).

This review focuses on research in which conflict is defined asa dyadic, interpersonal, behavioral event involving opposition.Excluded are global measures of individual and family traitsthat do not take as their referent specific interactions (e.g., theConflict Behavior Questionnaire [Prinz et al., 1979; Robin &Foster, 1984], the Family Environment Scale [Moos, 1974], andthe Oppositionalism Scale [Hill, Holmbeck, Marlow, Green, &Lynch, 1985a, 1985b]). Research restricted to competition(e.g., Deutsch, 1973), aggression (e.g., Olweus, 1978), andspeech interruptions (e.g., Jacob, 1974; Steinberg, 1981;Steinberg & Hill, 1978) is also omitted. Reports that exclusively

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 199

focus on negatively charged affective exchanges (e.g., quarrelsand agonism) are included; the limitations of these studies withrespect to the study of conflicts per se are noted. Research de-scribing normative patterns of conflict within relationships isrestricted to nonclinical samples and intact families.

Theoretical Perspectives on Conflict and AdolescentDevelopment

This section reviews historical and contemporary theories ofadolescent development, underscoring the role of conflict ineach. Three perspectives are outlined that, to varying degrees,emphasize disjunctive alterations in adolescent behavior. Psy-choanalytic, sociobiological, and cognitive-developmental the-ories each posit changes in conflict behavior as a function ofmaturation. These models describe change as a stagelike shift inindividual development. Although the origins of change differ,all predict increases in the rate and intensity of parent-childconflict during early or mid-adolescence. Modifications in con-flict resolution strategies are also hypothesized by cognitive-de-velopmental and sociobiological models. Finally, all hold thatthe ultimate outcome of conflict is realignment of the parent-child relationship. In contrast, the inherent stability of close re-lationships provides a point of developmental organization ac-cording to social relational perspectives. Consistency, notchange, is anticipated in conflict behavior across the adolescentyears. In this model, individual development is characterized bycontinuity. Variation in adolescent conflict behavior is expectedat the level of the relationship, with differences between parents,siblings, and peers emerging in the rate, resolution, and out-come of disagreements.

Psychoanalytic Models

Neo-Freudian views (Bios, 1979; A. Freud, 1958) describepsychological and behavioral realignment resulting from physi-ological maturation. Biological changes at puberty reawakenOedipal desires. Unlike the phallic period, these urges produceintrapsychic conflict between the id and the superego during theadolescent years. Conflict with and detachment from parentsare normative pathways for adolescents to realign relationshipsand reduce anxieties. Peers become increasingly important as asubstitute for close ties with parents.

This model stresses discontinuity in adolescent behavior.Change, although not precipitous, is salient enough to disruptfamily relations. Libidinal urges flood the adolescent, eruptinginto conflict with parents. To cope, the adolescent withdraws,provoking more disputes. Generational conflict subsides withthe establishment of alternative love objects. Neoanalytic theo-rists differ on the rate of change (Bios posits more gradual alter-ations than A. Freud) but agree that the incidence and intensityof parent-child conflict peak with the onset of pubertal matu-ration and decline as peers become the focus of sexual attrac-tion.

Sociobiological Models

A similar emphasis on discontinuity as a result of biologicalmaturation is evident in Hall's (1904) storm and stress model.

Recapitulation theory, now largely discredited, argued that anera of turbulent relations was the product of human evolution-ary history. This perspective has long been a staple of popularculture.

Recent sociobiological models (Steinberg, 1989, 1990) sharesimilar themes of abrupt change in adolescent behavior, withmajor transformations in parent-child relationships triggeredby biological maturation. Puberty heightens conflict with par-ents, altering the relationship to ensure that adolescents spendmore time with peers and mate with individuals who are notmembers of the immediate family. Because these adaptive fea-tures enhanced survival, they were incorporated into humanevolutionary history.

Despite claims to the contrary, sociobiological perspectivesimply discontinuity in conflict behavior. Relative to earlier bio-logical and psychoanalytic views, the implied shifts are modest.Still, pubertal development in early adolescence evokes inherentpredispositions that elevate the rate and intensity of parent-child conflict. Once distance from the family is achieved, con-flict subsides. Individual variability is not precluded; the rateand timing of puberty profoundly influence trajectories of de-velopment (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Offer & Offer,1975). The emphasis, however, is on universal behavioral alter-ations in response to maturation.

Evolutionary models further predict changes in the way par-ent-adolescent conflicts are resolved. Again, realignments arehypothesized. Dominance, or getting one's way, depends on in-fluence within the family. For children, influence varies as afunction of gender and pubertal status (Steinberg, 1981; Stein-berg & Hill, 1978). Preadolescents have little power and no op-tion in conflict but submission. With the onset of puberty, ado-lescents seek greater influence by challenging their mother (fa-ther is too powerful). The challenge is largely successful;postpubertal sons attain family influence second only to the fa-ther, whereas postpubertal daughters raise their position toequal that of the mother. This suggests that, across adolescence,children remain submissive in conflicts with fathers, whereasdisputes with mothers increasingly evince dominance from sonsand compromise from daughters.

Cognitive-Developmental Models

In cognitive-developmental models, discontinuity stemsfrom intellectual maturation, which is hypothesized to spur re-visions in the adolescent's understanding of the self and rela-tionships. New perspectives change behavior toward parents, in-evitably producing conflict. In this view, behavior is rapidly re-vised as a result of stagelike shifts in mental abilities. Cognitivereorganization during mid- to late adolescence increases par-ent-child conflict. The eventual decline in conflict is more grad-ual as issues and roles are renegotiated.

Two similar positions may be identified, differing primarily inthe extent to which cognitive abilities are reorganized. Selman(1981; Selman & Schultz, 1989) and Youniss (1980; Youniss &Smollar, 1985) have portrayed global cognitive advances,whereas Smetana (1988) has detailed domain-specific growth.For Smetana, cognitive maturation implies that adolescentsperceive issues previously considered under parental purview as

200 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

personal decisions. Parental insistence on a conventional per-spective heightens conflict. For Selman and \buniss, cognitivedevelopment recasts adolescents' understanding of parent-childroles. Children increasingly see parents in egalitarian termssimilar to friends. Parental reluctance to adopt a reciprocal, ho-rizontal relationship heightens conflict.

Although revision of cognitive schemes occurs over a rela-tively brief period of time, there may be delays in translatingthese advances into conflict behavior. Differing rates of changeare postulated. The domain-specific approach suggests that be-havior is reorganized more rapidly, on a topic-by-topic basis,than global revisions, which must be gradually applied to per-ceptions of the self and relationships before becoming manifestin behavior.

Adolescent cognitive advances also imply changing patternsof conflict resolution. Compromise and negotiation, it is ar-gued, are the most cognitively sophisticated resolution tactics,requiring advanced stages of reasoning (Selman, 1981; Sme-tana, 1988; Youniss, 1980). Therefore, as mental abilities im-prove, so too should rates of compromise. Consistent with Pia-get's (1932/1965) original depiction of social relations, friends,not parents, foster initial cognitive advances. It follows that ad-olescents would be expected to compromise more frequentlywith peers than with adults.

Social Relational Models

Social relational perspectives emphasize developmental con-tinuity resulting from the inherent stability of close relation-ships (Collins & Laursen, 1992; Hartup & Laursen, 1993;Laursen, in press-a). The salience of maintaining relationshipcloseness and equity means that change, when it occurs, will begradual. In this model, adolescent behavior varies more as afunction of the relationship in which conflict arises and the set-ting in which it takes place than as a function of the age or mat-uration level of the conflict participants.

According to equity theory, relationships are establishedwhen two parties engage in consistently rewarding exchanges(Kelley et al., 1983). Closeness develops with increasing inter-dependence as participants become invested in the relationshipand its rewards. Establishing and maintaining a close relation-ship requires that participants integrate their goals and behav-iors, which inevitably produces conflict. Investment in the rela-tionship, however, means that individuals will minimize the po-tentially disruptive impact of conflict so as to continuerewarding exchanges.

For adolescents, relationships with parents and friends areascribed the greatest degree of closeness and interdependence(Argyle & Furnham, 1982; Laursen, in press-a). They providea base from which adolescents explore the world. Adolescentperceptions and expectancies of relationships are viewed as sig-nificant mechanisms that act as buffers or filters against rapidphysical, social, and cognitive realignments. Although some re-lationship changes are required for adaptation, gradual trans-formation best describes the process (Collins, 1990; Collins &Repinski, in press). Close relationships are inherently conserva-tive structures that resist dramatic reformulations. For this rea-

son, greater variation is anticipated in conflict behavior amongdifferent types of relationships than across age periods.

Further variation in conflict behavior should be evident as afunction of the ease with which an interdependent relationshipmay be dissolved (Berscheid, 1985; Collins & Laursen, 1992).Closed relationships (parent-child and sibling bonds) are con-strained by kinship, norms, and laws. They change slowly andare not easily disrupted. Open relationships (romantic partnersand friends) are voluntary and more fluid. They are formed andtransformed with greater frequency (see Laursen, in press-a, forfurther discussion of distinctions between relationships).

The characteristics of closeness and relationship stability arepresumed to interact to determine adolescent conflict behavior.In close peer relationships, adolescents should minimize the fre-quency of disagreements, and compromise in those that do ariseso as not to disrupt the relationship. Such precautions are notnecessary to preserve family ties, so more conflict and submis-sion are expected. Variation among family members is also an-ticipated, with greater conflict between mothers and adolescentsbecause these relationships are closer and more interdependentthan those with fathers or siblings. Relationships with neigh-bors, employers, teachers, and classmates are not characterizedby closeness and, consequently, should involve relatively littleconflict. When conflicts arise, less compromise and more nega-tive outcomes are expected as individuals constrained by nei-ther closeness nor kinship resort to tactics that damage affilia-tions.

Conflicts During Adolescence

This review presents representative research on three compo-nents of adolescent conflict. Of all conflict components, inci-dence and intensity, resolutions, and outcomes have emerged ascritical indices that signify the salience of conflict for individu-als and relationships (Collins & Laursen, 1992). To highlightdistinctions among psychoanalytic, sociobiological, cognitive-developmental, and social relational models of adolescent de-velopment, two pivotal questions are addressed: Do conflictrates and processes vary as a function of relationships? Are age-related changes in conflict behaviors evident?

Differences Across Relationships

All theories of adolescent development either explicitly or im-plicitly emphasize the significance of parent-adolescent dis-agreements, with conflict expected to be more frequent and in-tense than in other relationships with siblings, close peers (e.g.,friends and romantic partners), and other peers and adults (e.g.,classmates and teachers). Less unanimity surrounds resolutionsand outcomes. Social relational and cognitive-developmentalperspectives predict that age-mates, especially close peers, willcompromise more than parents. Social relational theories alsoanticipate that conflict outcomes will vary depending on thecloseness and voluntary nature of the affiliation; other modelsdo not specify potential relationship differences in outcomes.

Incidence and IntensityAdolescents report an average of seven disagreements per day,

with rates varying according to the relationship (Laursen, in

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 201

press-b). Most involve mothers, followed in descending order by(a) siblings, friends, and romantic partners; (b) fathers; and (c)other peers and adults (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Laursen,in press-b; RafFaelli, 1990). Negative affect is highest in conflictswith family members and other adult and peer associates; it isnot characteristic of adolescent disputes with friends or roman-tic partners (Laursen, 1993c).

Resolution

Vuchinich (1990) specified five distinct forms of conflict res-olution: (a) Submission occurs when one party accedes or capit-ulates to the demands of the other; (b) compromise reflects con-cessions from both parties, usually achieved by negotiation; (c)standoff entails a shift in the topic of speech or focus of activitysuch that the disagreement is dropped without a resolution; (d)withdrawal occurs when one participant refuses to continue,perhaps by leaving the field; and (e) third-party intervention de-scribes participants submitting to a solution proposed by an un-involved individual. Some investigators combine standoffs andwithdrawals into a single strategy referred to as disengagement.

Relationship differences are evident in conflict resolutions.Results from a meta-analysis summarizing 12 studies of adoles-cent conflict management indicated low levels of compromisein parent-adolescent conflict; submission and disengagementwere prevalent (Laursen, 1993b). Rates of compromise amongclose peers were higher and submission and disengagementlower than with parents. Patterns of resolution with other peersand adults fell somewhere in between: As with parents, submis-sion was prevalent; however, as with close peers, there was con-siderable compromise and little disengagement. Research alsosuggests distinct patterns of sibling conflict resolution. Equiva-lent levels of conflict are resolved by disengagement, submis-sion, and third-party intervention; very little compromise is re-ported (Hobart, 1991; RafFaelli, 1990). In summary, friendsand romantic partners manage conflicts cautiously throughcompromise and disengagement. All other relationships evincesubmission, suggesting that winning takes precedence over rela-tionship considerations.

In family disputes, daughters were found to be more likelythan sons to intervene in disagreements between a parent anda sibling (Vuchinich, Emery, & Cassidy, 1988). Children wereequally likely to side with the parent as with the sibling, whereasparents tended to side with one another. Intervention tacticsvaried by roles: Fathers demanded submission, mothers medi-ated, and children preferred disengagement.

Conflict resolution strategies in one relationship may accountfor manifestations in another as individuals apply the "lessons"learned from previous encounters (Shantz, in press). Adoles-cents from families that engage openly and constructively in dis-agreement are better able to resolve conflict productively withpeers than those whose parents cut oif disagreement unilaterally(Cooper, 1988; Cooper & Ayers-Lopez, 1985).

Outcome

The aftermath of a conflict may take a variety of forms. Someeffects are primarily short term, altering personal behaviors,

emotional states, or relationship interactions. Others signifi-cantly influence aspects of individual psychosocial developmentand long-term relationship functioning. Unlike previous sec-tions, therefore, this one is organized with two different types ofconflict sequelae: (a) impact on subsequent interactions and (b)impact on individual development.

Impact on interactions. The effect of conflict on subsequentinteractions varies within relationships (Laursen, 1993c;RafFaelli, 1990). Social interaction among friends and romanticpartners is likely to continue after disputes, whereas exchangesare frequently discontinued after conflict with parents, siblings,and others. In contrast to other relationships, close peers arealso more likely to report positive feelings after a conflict.

Research with adolescents, as well as that with younger chil-dren, indicates that resolutions shape outcomes: Disengage-ment and compromise promote continued social interaction,whereas submission does not (Laursen, 1990; Laursen &Hartup, 1989). Thus, the tactics of friends and romantic part-ners mitigate the disruptive potential of conflict, whereas reso-lutions in other relationships aggravate negative effects and in-crease the likelihood of discontinued interactions (Eisenberg &Garvey, 1981; Laursen, 1993b).

Impact on individuals. Most adolescent conflicts have littleor no long-term impact on the relationship (Laursen, 1993c).Among friends and romantic partners, disagreements report-edly make the relationship better as often as they have no effect;disagreements rarely worsen romantic relationships. In con-trast, conflict tends to make relationships with other peers andnonfamilial adults worse. Family relationships are least suscep-tible to change on the basis of a disagreement.

Although single conflict episodes rarely have a significant im-pact on close relationships, the cumulative effects of con-tentiousness are detrimental. Longitudinal studies of friends(Berndt & Keefe, 1992) and families (Patterson & Bank, 1989)indicate that relationship bonds deteriorate with continuedconflict. Parents' and adolescents' emotional states may also beadversely affected. Frequent and intense conflict has been foundto be negatively related to parental self-esteem (Silverberg &Steinberg, 1987), parental life satisfaction (Schoenleber, 1988),and adolescent attitudes toward parents (Olson et al., 1983).

Recurrent conflict also has negative developmental implica-tions. Family conflict rates have been prospectively linked toadolescent delinquency and behavior disorders (Patterson &Bank, 1989; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991). Clinically re-ferred families with adolescent children report more frequentand intense disagreements than do nonclinical families (Prinzet al., 1979; Robin & Foster, 1984). Retrospective research hasrevealed elevated levels of parent-child conflict among adoles-cent runaways (Adams, Gullotta, & Clancy, 1985; Shellow,Schamp, Liebow, & Unger, 1967) and suicide attempters(Corder, Shorr, & Corder, 1974). Increases in conflict betweenfriends longitudinally predict detachment from school andlower grades (Berndt & Keefe, 1992).

Conflicts that involve constructive engagement, however, maystimulate positive adaptation. Correlational findings indicatethat parent-child triads with interactions marked by respon-siveness to adolescents' expressions of discrepant opinions areassociated with advanced adolescent ego-identity and social

202 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

perception skills (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986). Adoles-cents demonstrating the greatest levels of compromise in con-flicts with peers also report the most positive self-esteem (Coo-per & Cooper, 1992).

Differences across relationships in conflict outcomes parallelvariations in resolutions. Friends and romantic partners reportfew negative effects. In all other relationships, conflict tends tosever social interaction. Although families are relatively imper-vious to disruption, conflict may result in long-term damage tononfamilial relationships.

Age-Related Differences

Theoretical models also differ in predictions of age-relatedchanges in conflict behaviors. Psychoanalytic and evolutionaryviews hold that the incidence and intensity of conflicts shouldincrease with the onset of pubertal maturation. Cognitive-de-velopmental perspectives predict more frequent conflicts, aswell as an increase in compromise resolutions coinciding witha reorganization of mental abilities. Regardless of the mecha-nism, all posit some degree of discontinuity in conflict behavior.Social relational models take a different approach, arguing forconsistency and gradual transformation. Age-related changes inconflict behaviors, if present at all, should be slow and mea-sured, especially within close relationships.

Incidence and Intensity

The hypothesis that conflict becomes more frequent in earlyadolescence and declines thereafter has been tested in cross-sec-tional comparisons of groups denned by age as well as degree ofpubertal maturation. Parent-child relationships have been theprimary focus of these studies, but all interdependent relation-ships are potentially vulnerable to the effects of individualchange.

Parent-child relationships. Age-related shifts in conflicthave often been described in terms of an inverted U-shapedfunction, with rates peaking at the apex of puberty in early tomid-adolescence (Montemayor, 1983; Paikoff& Brooks-Gunn,1991). This generally accepted depiction is based more on con-sensus and theoretical coherence than on available empiricalevidence. The most frequently cited studies (Steinberg, 1981;Steinberg & Hill, 1978) used speech interruptions rather thaninterpersonal conflict as the dependent measure. When thesestudies are excluded, the inconsistent findings that remain donot support the common assumption that parent-child conflictpeaks at the height of adolescent maturation (Collins &Laursen, 1992). Examples from different research traditions il-lustrate this point.

The first comes from Steinberg's (1987, 1988) analysis of self-reports by 10-15-year-old adolescents and their parents. Thiswork involved both cross-sectional comparisons of groups de-fined by different levels of pubertal maturation and longitudinalfollow-ups of the same subjects 1 year later. To assess incidenceof conflict, the Issues Checklist (Prinz et al., 1979; Robin & Fos-ter, 1984) was modified; conflict was defined as a "discussion"with an affective level greater than "calm." Neither parents' noradolescents' reports of conflict frequency were consistently re-

lated to pubertal maturation in cross-sectional and 1-year lon-gitudinal analyses. Instead, clear evidence emerged for dimin-ished closeness as a function of puberty.

The second example comes from an observational study ofparent-adolescent interaction (Holmbeck & Hill, 1991). Thisresearch involved cross-sectional comparisons of seventh-gradegirls grouped according to relative proximity to menarche. Al-though daughters who had experienced menarche within 1 yearof the time of the study showed more frequent and sustainedlevels of reciprocal disagreement with mothers than did girlswhose menarche either had not yet occurred or had occurredless recently, most of these trends failed to reach statistical sig-nificance. Furthermore, rates of father-daughter conflict wereunrelated to pubertal status. Finally, because more than half ofthe sample had not yet reached puberty, the findings on pubertalstatus cannot be disentangled from pubertal timing.

In a third example, longitudinal and cross-sectional analysesof intact families with early adolescent children (drawn from alarger sample including divorced and remarried families) indi-cated weak and inconsistent links between rates of conflict andpubertal status (Anderson, Hetherington, & Clingempeel,1989). A combined measure of conflict and negativity was de-rived from interviews and laboratory observations of family in-teractions. Longitudinal comparisons (with limited power be-cause of small sample sizes) revealed no associations betweenparent-adolescent conflict and puberty. Cross-sectional resultsindicated that sons' pubertal status correlated curvilinearlywith rates of conflict with mothers and fathers. Linear associa-tions also emerged between puberty and conflict with mothersbut not fathers. There were no consistent linear or curvilinearassociations between pubertal maturation and rates of parent-daughter conflict.

Two studies failed to reveal consistent associations betweenconflict intensity and puberty. First, level of discussion angerwas not reliably associated with pubertal status according toparents and their 13-year-old children (Papini & Sebby, 1988).Families responding to the Issues Checklist (Prinz et al., 1979;Robin & Foster, 1984) reported that negative affect was in-versely related to pubertal maturation in conflicts over timemanagement and leisure activities. Puberty was unrelated toconflict intensity in all other issues. Second, observational re-search on families with early adolescent children revealed linear(but not curvilinear) associations between the number of angryexpressions directed toward parents and hormonal levels indaughters (Inoff-Germain et al., 1988). Neither linear nor cur-vilinear associations were found between anger and hormonesin sons.

In general, pubertal timing has been found to be morestrongly associated with parent-adolescent conflict than has pu-bertal status. In Steinberg's (1987, 1988) research, the linkagewas pronounced for boys, with early maturing sons reportingconsiderable negative affect in conflicts with both parents. Fa-thers (but not mothers) indicated increased conflict with latematuring boys. Reports of conflict over family rules were espe-cially likely in families with early maturing offspring, both maleand female (Hill, 1988; Hill & Holmbeck, 1987). Finally, earlymaturing daughters (but not sons) reported elevated rates ofconflict with parents (Savin-Williams & Small, 1986). Parents,

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 203

in contrast, indicated greater conflict only with late maturingsons. These studies support the view that conflicts tend to bemore frequent in families with adolescents who experience pu-berty "off-time."

Mixed results also emerge from age-graded comparisons ofconflict between parents and adolescents. Relying on retrospec-tive accounts, Offer (1969; Offer & Offer, 1975) described "ar-guments and fights" as more frequent during 7th and 8th gradethan during high school. Furman and Buhrmester (1992) foundthat global perceptions of conflict with parents were greater forboth 7th and 10th graders than for 4th graders or college under-graduates. Yet several studies (Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Ga-lambos & Almeida, in press; Hagan, Hollier, O'Connor, & Ei-senberg, 1992; Moore & Holtzman, 1965; Smetana, 1989)found no differences across age groups in reported frequency ofdisagreements with parents. Taken together, the evidence doesnot support the notion that parent-adolescent conflict rises andfalls as a function of the child's age.

A more complex dynamic can be envisioned, however,whereby conflicts are affected by a convergence of life-courseissues experienced by both parents and adolescents. Pubertalmaturation may interact with other adolescent transitions. Forexample, pubertal timing effects have been found to be ex-acerbated by stressors such as shifting from elementary to ju-nior high school and beginning to date (Simmons & Blyth,1987; Simmons, Burgeson, & Reef, 1988). The complex issuesfacing adolescents may coincide with parental concerns aboutmiddle age, biological change, and occupational achievement(Aldous, 1978; Rossi, 1987). Recent findings indicate that par-ent reports of work and marital dissatisfaction may also belinked to conflict with adolescents (Silverberg & Steinberg,1990).

Sibling relationships. Research on sibling conflicts duringadolescence has been rare and the findings inconsistent. Resultsfrom the Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman &Buhrmester, 1992) indicated that sibling conflict was similar forthose in Grades 4 and 7, higher at Grade 10, and lower duringcollege. Raffaelli (1990) found no differences between 5th and8th graders in self-reported levels of sibling conflict. A cross-sectional study of 3rd through 12th graders, however, indicatedthat age-related patterns may depend on the relative age of thereporting sibling (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Across grades,older siblings reported consistent levels of conflict, whereasyounger siblings reported declining incidences.

Peer relationships. The paucity of developmental data onconflict between adolescent friends is somewhat surprisinggiven the extent of research among younger children. Interviewswith students in the second through eighth grades revealed noage-related differences in conflict rates (Berndt & Perry, 1986;Raffaelli, 1990). Beginning in mid-adolescence, however, con-flict with same-sex friends was found to decline, whereas thatwith romantic friends increased (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992;Miller, 1993).

In sum, comparisons do not reveal clear evidence that thefrequency and intensity of parent-adolescent conflict increaseat the peak period of pubertal change. Instead, individualdifferences in parent-child conflict may be tied to pubertal tim-ing, especially for those off-time. Less evidence is available on

conflict among siblings and close peers, although reports do re-flect the increased significance of heterosexual relationshipsduring late adolescence.

Resolution

Rapid improvement in resolution competence has been sup-ported by studies in which adolescents were asked to indicateappropriate strategies for responding to hypothetical conflicts.Results indicate that knowledge of appropriate skills and strat-egies for compromise increases from middle childhood to lateadolescence (Levya & Furth, 1986; Selman, Beardslee, Schultz,Krupa, & Podorefsky, 1986).

In contrast, behavior in actual conflicts shows neither adominant tendency to compromise nor age trends that imply arapid shift toward compromise. Naturalistic observations, ex-perimental analogs, and self-reports of conflict with peers andfamily members yield evidence that submission and disengage-ment are consistently more likely than compromise (Boggs,1978; Goodwin, 1982; Hobart, 1991; Montemayor & Hanson,1985; Raffaelli, 1990; Schoenleber, 1988; Smetana, Yau, &Hanson, 1991; Vuchinich, 1987; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Ameta-analysis summarizing research on actual and hypotheticaldisagreements indicated that, across relationships, approxi-mately 23% of adolescent conflicts are resolved by compromise,whereas 37% are resolved by submission and 40% by disengage-ment (Laursen, 1993b).

The relative likelihood of compromise resolutions has beenassessed directly. Sternberg and Dobson (1987) found a clearpreference for compromise in hypothetical disagreements,whereas disengagement was endorsed infrequently. The samesubjects, however, reported resolving recent actual conflictswith disengagement at least as often as with compromise. You-niss and Smollar (1985) found that adolescents offered compro-mise solutions for hypothetical situations twice as often as theyreported actually compromising in similar situations. Smetana(1989, 1991) reported that both parents' and adolescents' re-sponses to hypothetical conflicts did not predict reasoning orbehavior in actual disagreements. Age-related increases in ado-lescent compromising were evident only in hypothetical in-terviews; levels were consistently low across ages in actual con-flicts. Finally, in a meta-analysis of 19 studies of sibling and peerconflict resolution, Laursen (1993a) found that hypotheticalconflicts consistently overestimated rates of compromise in ac-tual disputes, although the discrepancy between reports dimin-ished considerably from early childhood to young adulthood.

The incidence of submission in adolescent conflicts with par-ents and peers does appear to decline with age. In laboratoryanalogs, younger adolescents were more likely to submit to par-ents than were their older counterparts (Smetana et al., 1991).Rates of submission in conflicts with siblings and peers also di-minish steadily across childhood and adolescence (Laursen,1993a). Marked gender differences emerge, however, in the de-gree to which this age-related pattern is manifested in conflictswith peers. Research findings imply that an increasing emphasison compromise with friends, rather than submission, may berestricted to females (Eder, 1990; Fitzpatrick & Winke, 1979;Goodwin & Goodwin, 1987; Krappmann & Oswald, 1987;

204 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Males of all ages rely almost exclu-sively on submission to resolve disputes with friends.

Little is known about developmental changes in the incidenceof third-party resolutions. This strategy is often excluded, inpart because many laboratory analogs do not allow for inter-vention by an outside party. It seems logical to assume, however,that the incidence of third-party interventions declines as thechild's social world increasingly provides interaction settingswith peers away from adult supervision.

Overall, processes of conflict resolution in actual interactionschange slowly across adolescence, despite evidence of increasingcompetence in hypothetical conflict. Much of the decline insubmission is accounted for by an increase in disengagement;social-cognitive maturation does not ensure compromise reso-lutions.

Outcome

Little attention has been given to age-related changes in theoutcome of adolescent disagreements. Claims that maturitybrings greater skills in managing conflict so as to avoid negativeoutcomes have not yet been substantiated.

Evaluation of Findings

Central theoretically derived predictions about the natureand processes of conflict during adolescence received mixedsupport. Inconsistencies call into question claims that the rateand intensity of conflict increase at the midpoint of adolescenceor puberty and subsequently decline. Indications that conflictrate may be tied to pubertal timing, however, imply a link be-tween social relational and sociobiological perspectives. As in-dividual variations in pubertal timing disrupt parental expecta-tions, patterns of closeness and equitable exchange are altered.Change is relatively abrupt because it is nonnormative. Adoles-cents who mature on time experience more gradual relation-ship realignment when pubertal development is consistent withexpectations.

Similarly, assumptions of developmental change in conflictmanagement were not supported. Despite gains in cognitivematurity and interpersonal understanding as expressed in hy-pothetical conflicts, actual levels of compromise remain lowacross adolescence. This could be interpreted as a perfor-mance-competence gap that is maintained into adulthood. Itmay also suggest linkages between social relational and cogni-tive-developmental theories. Cognitive maturity may promptthe realization that the inequitable outcomes associated withsubmission pose risks to relationships. Thus, even as interde-pendence increases the likelihood of conflict, maturation maydecrease the tendency for submission in close relationships.

Consistent with social relational assertions, available evi-dence indicates that adolescents behave quite differently in con-flicts with close peers than in all other relationships. Althoughrates of disagreement were relatively high, damage to relation-ships with close peers and family members was rare. Families,being more resistant to disruption, are less sensitive to long-term relationship concerns. Close peers, in contrast, are keenlyaware that a dispute may permanently rupture affiliations. Pro-

nounced differences between relationships in styles of conflictresolution are the result.

Contrary to conventional expectations, dramatic shifts in ad-olescent conflict behavior did not emerge. Bandura (1964) rea-soned as much 30 years ago: "The behavioral characteristicsexhibited by children during the so-called adolescent stage arelawfully related to, and consistent with, pre-adolescent socialbehavior" (p. 231). Although it is premature to conclude thatthe lack of evidence for developmental change supports claimsof consistency, the possibility that conflicts are no more inevita-ble in adolescence than in other life periods must be recognized.

Inconsistent results concerning age-related changes in con-flict rates do not accord with many assertions from psychoana-lytic, sociobiological, and cognitive-developmental theories.Some inconsistency may be the result of method and measure-ment variance; procedural variation, however, does not fully ac-count for discrepancies across studies. Consistent relationshipdifferences emerged in studies of conflict behavior, althoughsome of the same investigations failed to reveal reliable age-re-lated distinctions (e.g., Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Smetana,1991; Steinberg, 1987).

Relationship characteristics are powerful determinants ofconflict behavior. Within a framework emphasizing relation-ships as an organizing principle of development, conflict is bestunderstood as a function of properties of the dyad rather thanthe individual adolescent (Collins & Laursen, 1992; Hartup &Laursen, 1991). Continuity between earlier life periods and ad-olescence in functional attachments to friends and parents isnot interrupted by conflict. Members of close relationships areinvested in maintaining rewards. Thus, if inequity develops,steps most likely will be taken to restore the balance. Althoughchange is possible and inevitable as adolescents mature, the na-ture of close relationships encourages stability.

Toward a Comprehensive Picture of Adolescent Conflict

Previous findings provide some useful guidelines for framinga number of questions that remain to be answered about con-flict during adolescence. In this section, we summarize ap-proaches to the study of adolescent conflict and argue that de-pictions are incomplete because critical contextual variableshave been consistently omitted. An elaboration of social rela-tional theory is proposed that incorporates contextual varia-tions.

In a recent description of the influence of context, Hartupand Laursen (1993) postulated that the setting in which a con-flict arises shapes its course and impact. When constraintseffectively limit behavioral options, disagreements bear little re-semblance to unfettered exchanges.

In open-field settings, where other potential partners areavailable, friends strive to avoid conflicts and manage those thatdo arise in such a way as to minimize negative outcomes. Dis-agreements between preschool friends are marked by low levelsof negative affect, avoidance of submission, equitable outcomes,and continued social interaction (Hartup et al., 1988). Compe-tition for interaction partners is apparently enough of a threatto moderate conflict behavior. In closed-field settings, choicesare constrained and these inhibitions are not apparent. When

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 205

young friends play together in a laboratory, they are competitiveand contentious, making little or no attempt to minimize dis-agreement impact (Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986; Hartup,French, Laursen, Johnston, & Ogawa, 1993). Their conflictsdiffer from those in open-field settings because future exchangesare ensured; they have nowhere to go and no other partners areavailable.

Task demands constrain conflict resolutions as well. Disen-gagement is not an option in most laboratory settings becausesubjects must stay in the room and finish the game. Compro-mise over the rules is as unlikely as third-party intervention(Collins & Laursen, 1992; Steinberg, 1990). Therefore, in mostinstances someone must submit. In contrast, hypothetical in-terviews tend to produce ideal or competence-based responses,not necessarily those actually practiced. Hypothetical conflictinterviews produce high levels of adolescent compromise, a rar-ity in naturalistic observations and self-reports (Laursen,1993a). In laboratory tasks, which typically require reenactingactual disputes under artificial time and setting constraints,rates of compromise fall between these two extremes. Althoughsuch findings may initially appear contradictory, contextualconsiderations serve to clarify the picture. This important pointis underscored in a brief reexamination of conflict behaviorwithin relationships and across ages.

Context and Relationship Differencesin Conflict Behavior

Research has yet to directly compare adolescent conflict be-haviors across settings. In many ways, the contrast betweenopen- and closed-field settings corresponds to differences be-tween reports of conflicts under natural conditions and thosefound in typical laboratory tasks (Collins & Laursen, 1992). Inopen-field settings, adolescents report higher rates of conflictwith family members than with friends (Furman & Buhrmester,1992; Laursen, in press-b; Raffaelli, 1990). Research in closed-field settings, however, indicates just the opposite: Adolescentsdisagree more frequently with friends than with parents (Coo-per and Cooper, 1992).

Recognizing that methodological disparities make conclu-sions hazardous, we are struck by the appearance of greatervariability in conflict behavior among close peers than amongfamily members. Observations and self-reports emphasize sim-ilar themes in parent-adolescent conflict: Disputes over prosaicissues are resolved by parents coercing children into submis-sion, with positive relations maintained regardless of behavior.Greater contextual influence is apparent in adolescent disputeswith friends and romantic partners. Closed-field settings tend toelevate conflict rates and minimize the tendency for equality inresolutions. Perhaps close peers recognize that rules concerningvoluntary relationships do not apply in artificial situations and,as a result, potential disruption of future interactions isavoided, despite coercive behavior. In these settings, conflictwith peers more closely resembles conflict with family mem-bers. In open-field settings, friends and romantic partners avoidpotential negative relationship sequelae by avoiding disputesand minimizing the impact of those that do arise.

Context and Age-Related Differencesin Conflict Behavior

To complete the picture, consider the influence of context asit interacts with developmental status, conflict components, andrelationships. As an example, Hartup (1992) has suggested thatgreater cognitive maturity during late adolescence may decreasethe incidence of conflict between close peers in closed-field set-tings as participants increasingly expect equitable outcomes inthe tangible task before them. In open-field settings, however,an overriding focus on equality may increase the likelihood ofconflict as it becomes a pervasive source of concern in friend-ship relations. Similar concerns do not characterize relationswith parents, and an interaction between context and develop-ment is not anticipated.

Contextual influences also extend to conflict resolutions andoutcomes. As friends in closed-field settings increasingly expectequality in the task at hand, older adolescents may be more aptto compromise than their younger counterparts (Berndt et al.,1986). In open-field settings, interest in the well-being of therelationship outweighs sentiments for compromise; restoringtrust between friends may require an admission of wrongdoingor simply talking things over without attaining a concrete solu-tion.

Theoretical Implications of Contextual Influences

As researchers delve more deeply into the complexities ofconflict behavior, contextual considerations will substantiallyrefashion interpretations of continuity and change in adolescentdevelopment. At this time, it is difficult to accommodate thenotion of setting variations in biological and cognitive accountsof adolescent behavior. Intellectual and physical maturity re-main constant regardless of context, implying that behaviorwithin relationships should be consistent across settings (but seeSmetana, 1991, for a discussion of domain specificity and Bel-sky et al., 1991, for an account of individual variation). Theevidence on context differences in adolescent conflict behavior,however, suggests that although physical and cognitive maturitycontribute to conflict processes, they are not the sole source ofvariability.

Considerations of setting and context are readily accommo-dated by social relational models of development. Because indi-vidual investment in the relationship is of central concern, be-havior is driven by expectations of its perceived potential im-pact on the relationship. Some settings may constrain the effectsof conflict on voluntary relationships. In artificial conditions,free of concerns about relationship impact, close peers behavein a more self-serving manner than they do under normal cir-cumstances. Relations with family members, inherently morestable, display greater contextual consistency.

Conclusion

Does interpersonal conflict have distinctive characteristicsand special significance for development? As a microcosm ofinteraction patterns, conflict illustrates characteristics of ex-change within relationships and across developmental epochs.

206 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

Traditional biological and cognitive formulations of develop-ment do not fully account for the complexity of adolescent con-flict behavior. Contrary to the evidence, both imply some degreeof discontinuity in conflict behavior across the adolescent yearswhile simultaneously predicting consistency across settings.Furthermore, neither anticipates the clear differentiation inconflict resolutions and outcomes across relationships. We haveargued that a social relational view of development, groundedin equity theory, may explain much of this variability in conflictbehavior. Differentiation across relationships is determined bylevels of closeness, the extent to which affiliations were volun-tarily established, and the ease with which they may be dis-solved. Continuity and consistency characterize conflict behav-ior over time but not across differing relationships or settings.

Relationships themselves, and behavior within them, are ul-timately altered as conflict stimulates revised expectations andrenegotiates existing patterns of interdependencies to accom-modate changes in individual characteristics (Collins, 1990).The picture of evolving patterns of interaction amid continuityof interpersonal bonds implies that relationships during adoles-cence undergo a transformation toward patterns that help tomaintain connections between individuals while permittingchanges toward appropriate levels of individuation and auton-omy as adolescents mature (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Wynne,1984). Still, the emphasis is on lawful continuity that discour-ages rapid reorganization of behavior. Biological and cognitivematuration may interact with these processes and provide fur-ther impetus for developmental change.

Additional information is needed about variations in conflictduring adolescence and the conditions that determine its natureand developmental significance. For example, the correlates ofconflict across middle childhood and into adolescence have yetto be specified. Similarly, little is known about the manner inwhich disagreements unfold and how conflict dynamics deter-mine outcomes. Perhaps most significant, the complex in-terplay among context, maturation, and relationship character-istics is poorly understood. The form and function of normativeadolescent conflict must be specified before theoretical assump-tions surrounding the role of conflict in adolescent developmentcan be adequately tested.

Social relational perspectives underscore the need for addi-tional research on the role of conflict in adolescent develop-ment. Absent from the literature are observational investiga-tions comparing the conflict behaviors of adolescents with theirparents and with their peers. Similarly, longitudinal studies ofconflict are needed to disentangle age and puberty from the in-fluence of cognitive and social milestones. Finally, greater diver-sity in samples and settings is absolutely essential. Until suchstudies are completed, caution is warranted in drawing conclu-sions about the explanatory power of social relational perspec-tives. Although present evidence implies stability across age pe-riods and distinctions between relationships and contexts, acompelling test of the model awaits a study designed to delin-eate differences with a multiple method procedure that elimi-nates method variance complications.

The application of equity theory to child and adolescent rela-tionships is a relatively new enterprise (Berscheid, 1986;Laursen, in press-a). As such, it has yet to make a full account of

all critical developmental transitions. Even in its nascent form,however, it is apparent that a social relational perspective holdsconsiderable explanatory power. Perhaps most important forscholars of adolescent development, it provides an alternativetheoretical model that both offers and describes continuitywithin change.

References

Adams, G. R., Gullotta, X, & Clancy, M. N. (1985). Homeless adoles-cents: A descriptive study of similarities and differences between run-aways and throwaways. Adolescence, 20,115-724.

Aldous, J. (1978). Family careers: Developmental change in families.New York: Wiley.

Anderson, E. R., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1989).Transformations in family relations at puberty: Effects of familycontext. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9. 310-334.

Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1982). Sources of satisfaction and conflictin different long-term relationships. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 45,481-493.

Bandura, A. (1964). The stormy decade: Fact or fiction? Psychology inthe Schools, 7,224-231.

Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience,interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolution-ary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647-670.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Changes in friend-ship during a school year: Effects on children's and adolescents' im-pressions of friendship and sharing with friends. Child Development,57, 1284-1297.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1992). Friends' influence on adolescents'perceptions of themselves at school. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 51-73). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children's perceptions of friendshipsas supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640-648.

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Ar-onson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 413-484). New\brk: Random House.

Berscheid, E. (1986). Emotional experience in close relationships: Someimplications for child development. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin(Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 135-166). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Bios, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. Madison, CT: InternationalUniversities Press.

Boggs, S. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiianchildren. Language in Society, 7, 325-344.

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relation-ships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development,61, 1387-1398.

Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationships in the transition to ad-olescence: Continuity and change in interaction, affect, and cogni-tion. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), From child-hood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 85-106). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (1992). Conflict and the transition to ad-olescence. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in childand adolescent development (pp. 216-241). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. J. (in press). Relationships during ado-lescence: Continuity and change in interpersonal perspective. In R.Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationshipsduring adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cooper, C. R. (1988). The role of conflict in adolescent-parent relation-

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 207

ships. In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Minnesota symposiaon child psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, C. R., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (1985). Family and peer systems inearly adolescence: New models of the role of relationships in develop-ment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 9-22.

Cooper, C. R., & Cooper, R. G., Jr. (1992). Links between adolescents'relationships with their parents and peers: Models, evidence, andmechanisms. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer rela-tionships: Modes of linkage (pp. 135-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corder, B. F., Shorr, W., & Corder, R. F. (1974). A study of social andpsychological characteristics of adolescent suicide attempters in anurban, disadvantaged area. Adolescence, 9, 1-6.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York:Wiley.

Eder, D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talkamong female adolescents. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 67-84). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategiesin resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one youlove: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. CommunicationQuarterly. 27, 3-11.

Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 13,255-278.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in per-ceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development,63, 103-115.

Galambos, N. L., & Almeida, D. M. (in press). Does parent-adolescentconflict increase in early adolescence? Journal of Marriage and theFamily.

Garvey, C. (1984). Children's talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Goodwin, M. H. (1982). Processes of dispute management among ur-ban Black children. American Ethnologist, 9, 76-96.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. Phil-ips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in compar-ative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investiga-tions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1985). Patterns of interaction in familyrelationships and the development of identity exploration in adoles-cence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relation-ships. Human Development, 29, 82-100.

Hagan, M. S., Hollier, E. A., O'Connor, T. G., & Eisenberg, M. (1992).Parent-child relationships in nondivorced, divorced, single-mother,and remarried families. In E. M. Hetherington & W. G. Clingempeel(Eds.), Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No. 227).

Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence. New York: Appleton.Hartup, W. W. (1992). Conflict and friendship relations. In C. U. Shantz

& W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development(pp. 186-215). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hartup, W. W., French, D. C., Laursen, B., Johnston, M. K., & Ogawa,J. R. (1993). Conflict and friendship relations in middle childhood:Behavior in a closed-field situation. Child Development, 64,445-454.

Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1991). Relationships as developmental

contexts. In R. Cohen & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development(pp. 253-280). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1993). Conflict and context in peer re-lations. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research per-spectives and applications (pp. 44-84). Albany: State University ofNew 'Vbrk Press.

Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. I., & Eastenson, A. (1988).Conflict and the friendship relations of young children. Child Devel-opment, 59, 1590-1600.

Hay, D. F. (1984). Social conflict in early childhood. In G. Whitehurst(Ed.), Annals of 'child development (Vol. l,pp. 1-44). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Hill, J. P. (1988). Adapting to menarche: Familial control and conflict.In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Minnesota symposia onchild psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1987). Disagreements about rules infamilies with seventh-grade girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Ado-lescence, 16, 221-246.

Hill, J. P., Holmbeck, G. N., Marlow, L., Green, T. M., & Lynch, M. E.(1985a). Menarcheal status and parent-child relations in families ofseventh grade girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 314-330.

Hill, J. P., Holmbeck, G. N., Marlow, L., Green, T. M., & Lynch,M. E. (1985b). Pubertal status and parent-child relations in familiesof seventh grade boys. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5,31 -44.

Hobart, C. J. (1991, April). Preadolescents' and adolescents'conflictswith siblings and friends. Paper presented at the meeting of the Soci-ety for Research in Child Development, Seattle.

Holmbeck, G. N., & Hill, J. P. (1991). Conflictive engagement, positiveaffect, and menarche in families with seventh grade girls. Child De-velopment, 62, 1030-1048.

Inoff-Germain, G., Arnold, G. S., Nottelmann, E. D., Susman, E. J.,Cutler, G. B., Jr., & Chrousos, G. P. (1988). Relations between hor-mone levels and observational measures of aggressive behavior ofyoung adolescents in family interactions. Developmental Psychology,24, 129-139.

Jacob, T. (1974). Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a func-tion of child age and social class. Developmental Psychology, 10, 1-12.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston,T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R.(1983). Close relationships. San Francisco: Freeman.

Krappmann, L., & Oswald, H. (1987, April). Negotiation strategies inpeer conflicts: A follow-up study in natural settings. Paper presentedat the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Baltimore.

Laursen, B. (1990, March). Contextual variations in adolescent conflict.Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Ado-lescence, Atlanta.

Laursen, B. (1993a, March). Age-related changes in the management ofpeer conflict. In B. Laursen (Chair), The role of conflict in relation-ships with close peers and siblings: Getting along with age mates.Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research inChild Development, New Orleans.

Laursen, B. (1993b). Conflict management among close friends. In B.Laursen (Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence: New directions forchild development (pp. 39-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laursen, B. (1993c). The perceived impact of conflict on adolescent re-lationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 535-550.

Laursen, B. (in press-a). Closeness and conflict in adolescent peer rela-tionships: Interdependence with friends and romantic partners. InW. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The com-pany they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

208 BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

Laursen, B. (in press-b). Conflict and social interaction in adolescentrelationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence.

Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (1989). The dynamics of preschool chil-dren's conflicts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 281-297.

Levya, R. A., & Furth, H. G. (1986). Compromise formation in socialconflicts: The influence of age, issue, and interpersonal context. Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 441-452.

Maynard, D. W. (1985). How children start arguments. Language inSociety, 14, 1-29.

Miller, K. E. (1993, March). Same-sex and opposite-sex friendship qual-ity and perceived social competence: Developmental overlap. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Devel-opment, New Orleans.

Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All familiessome of the time and some families most of the time. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 3, 83-103.

Montemayor, R., & Hanson, E. (1985). A naturalistic view of conflictbetween adolescents and their parents and siblings. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 5, 23-30.

Moore, B. M., & Holtzman, W. H. (1965). Tomorrow's parents. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teenager. New \brk:Basic Books.

Offer, D., & Offer, J. B. (1975). From teenage to young manhood: Apsychological study. New York: Basic Books.

Olson, D., McCubbin, H., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wil-son, M. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whippingboys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relationshipschange during puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47-66.

Papini, D. R., & Sebby, R. A. (1988). Variations in conflictual issuesby adolescent pubertal status, gender, and family member. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, S, 1-15.

Patterson, G. R., & Bank, L. (1989). Some amplifying mechanisms forpathologic process in families. In M. R. Gunnar & E. Thelen (Eds.),Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 167-209).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter modelfor predicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), Thedevelopment and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139-168).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C, & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and the devel-opment of antisocial behavior. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 301-329).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.(Original work published 1932)

Prinz, R. J., Foster, S. L., Kent, R. N., & O'Leary, K. D. (1979). Multi-variate assessment of conflict in distressed and non-distressedmother-adolescent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,691-700.

Raffaelli, M.(1990). Sibling conflict in early adolescence. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1984). Problem-solving communicationtraining: A behavioral family systems approach to parent-adolescentconflict. In P. Karoly & J. J. Steffen (Eds.), Adolescent behavior disor-ders: Foundations and contemporary concerns (pp. 195-240). Lexing-ton, MA: Heath.

Rossi, A. (1987). Parenthood in transition: From lineage to child to

self-orientation. In J. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, & L. Sherrod(Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 31 -81). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Small, S. A. (1986). The timing of pubertyand its relationship to adolescent and parent perceptions of familyinteractions. Developmental Psychology, 22, 342-347.

Schoenleber, K. L. (1988). Parental perceptions and expectations andtheir relationship to parent-child conflict and parental satisfactionduring the transition to adolescence. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Minnesota.

Selman, R. L. (1981). The development of interpersonal competence:The role of understanding in conduct. Developmental Review, 1, 401-422.

Selman, R. L., Beardslee, W, Schultz, L. H., Krupa, M., & Podorefsky,D. (1986). Assessing adolescent interpersonal negotiation strategies:Toward the integration of structural and functional models. Develop-mental Psychology, 22, 450-459.

Selman, R. L., & Schultz, L. H. (1989). Children's strategies for inter-personal negotiation with peers: An interpretive/empirical approachto the study of social development. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd(Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 371-406). NewYork: Wiley.

Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflict between children. Child Development,58, 283-305.

Shantz, C. U. (in press). Children's conflicts: Representations and les-sons learned. In R. R. Cocking & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The devel-opment and meaning of psychological distance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Shantz, C. U., & Hartup, W. W. (Eds.). (1992). Conflict in child andadolescent development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Shantz, C. U., & Hobart, C. J. (1989). Social conflict and development:Peers and siblings. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relation-ships in child development (pp. 71 -94). New "Vbrk: Wiley.

Shellow, R., Schamp, J. R., Liebow, E., & Unger, E. (1967). Suburbanrunaways of the 1960's. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, J2(Serial No. III).

Silverberg, S., & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent conflict, and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Ad-olescence, 76,293-312.

Silverberg, S. B., & Steinberg, L. (1990). Psychological well-being of par-ents with early adolescent children. Developmental Psychology, 26,658-666.

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: Theimpact of pubertal change and school context. New \brk: Aldine deGruyter.

Simmons, R., Burgeson, R., & Reef, M. (1988). Cumulative change atentry to adolescence. In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Min-nesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 123-150). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smetana, J. G. (1988). Concepts of self and social convention: Adoles-cents' and parents' reasoning about hypothetical and actual familyconflicts. In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Minnesota sym-posia on child psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 79-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents' and parents' reasoning about actualfamily conflict. Child Development, 60, 1052-1067.

Smetana, J. G. (1991). Doing what you say and saying what you do:Reasoning about adolescent-parent conflict in interviews and interac-tions. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 276-295.

Smetana, J. G., Yau, J., & Hanson, S. (1991). Conflict resolution infamilies with adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1,189-206.

ADOLESCENT CONFLICT 209

Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty.Developmental Psychology, 17, 833-840.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Impact of puberty on family relations: Effects ofpubertal status and pubertal timing. Developmental Psychology, 23,451-460.

Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-child dis-tance and pubertal maturation. Developmental Psychology, 24,122-128.

Steinberg, L. (1989). Pubertal maturation and parent-adolescent dis-tance: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Adams, R. Montemayor, &T. Gullotta (Eds.), Biology of adolescent behavior and development(pp. 82-114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the familyrelationship. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: Thedeveloping adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Steinberg, L., & Hill, J. P. (1978). Patterns of family interaction as afunction of age, the onset of puberty, and formal thinking. Develop-mental Psychology, 14, 683-684.

Steinberg, R. J., & Dobson, D. M. (1987). Resolving interpersonal con-

flicts: An analysis of stylistic consistency. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 52, 794-812.

Vuchinich, S. (1987). Starting and stopping spontaneous family con-flicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 591 -601.

Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbalfamily conflict. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguis-tic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 118-138). Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Vuchinich, S., Emery, R. E., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Family members asthird parties in dyadic family conflict: Strategies, alliances, and out-comes. Child Development, 59, 1293-1302.

Wynne, L. (1984). The epigenesis of relational systems: A model forunderstanding family development. Family Process, 23, 297-318.

Yoimiss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fa-thers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Received December 8,1992Revision received June 10, 1993

Accepted July 12, 1993 •

P&C Board Appoints Editor for New Journal:Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

In 1995, APA will begin publishing a new journal, the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.Raymond S. Nickerson, PhD, has been appointed as editor. Starting immediately, manuscripts shouldbe submitted to

Raymond S. Nickerson, PhDEditor, JEP: AppliedDepartment of PsychologyTufts UniversityMedford, MA 02155

The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied will publish original empirical investigations inexperimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. Thejournal also will publish research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processingor behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Review articles will beconsidered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experi-mental psychology.

Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, decision making, reasoning, informationprocessing, learning, and performance. Settings may be industrial (such as human-computer interfacedesign), academic (such as intelligent computer-aided instruction), or consumer oriented (such asapplications of text comprehension theory to the development or evaluation of product instructions).