Journal of Early Childhood Research 2012 Ashby 145 61

8/13/2019 Journal of Early Childhood Research 2012 Ashby 145 61

1/18

http://ecr.sagepub.com/Journal of Early Childhood Research

http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1476718X11430070

2012 10: 145 originally published online 17 April 2012Journal of Early Childhood ResearchNicole Ashby and Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett

Approaches to conflict and conflict resolution in toddler relationships

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Early Childhood ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - Apr 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 18, 2012Version of Record>>

by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013ecr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.refs.htmlhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/16/1476718X11430070.full.pdfhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.full.pdfhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.full.pdfhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/16/1476718X11430070.full.pdfhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.full.pdfhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145http://ecr.sagepub.com/


2/18

Journal of Early Childhood Research

10(2) 145161

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1476718X11430070

ecr.sagepub.com

Approaches to conflictand conflict resolutionin toddler relationships

Nicole AshbyMacquarie University, Australia

Cathrine Neilsen-HewettMacquarie University, Australia

AbstractThe importance of conflict and its resolution for childrens short- and long-term adjustment has been well

established within the research literature. Conflict and conflict resolution differs according to a number

of constructs, including age, gender and relationship status. The purpose of this study was to explore

conflict origins, resolution strategies and outcomes in two pairs of toddler friends and two pairs of toddler

acquaintances aged between two years and two months and two years and ten months. The dyads werecomposed of either two boys or two girls. Conflict events were of a reduced number between friends than

acquaintances, with time spent in conflict lower for friend pairs. Standing firm and yielding were the preferred

resolution strategies of both groups, with outcomes for both acquaintances and friends predominantly

win/lose. Gender differences were also evident. Girl dyads engaged in more conflict events and spent

an increased amount of time in conflict than boy dyads. Yielding was the dominant resolution strategy

employed by boy pairs, whilst girl pairs favoured standing firm. Win/lose outcomes were the dominant

conflict resolution outcome for both boy and girl dyads. Taken together, these findings provide further

evidence for the relational nature of conflict, and highlight the need for further research examining conflict

and conflict resolution in toddler relationships.

Keywords

conflict, conflict resolution, toddler relationships

Conflict and the resolution of interpersonal conflict is a central feature of social competence during

childhood (Joshi, 2008) as well as being fundamental to the establishment and maintenance of

friendships. Regardless of age, time spent in social settings periodically involves some conflict.

Conflict among young children typically revolves around the sharing of resources or toys (Caplan

Corresponding author:Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett, Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

30070EUR

Article


3/18

146 Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

et al., 1991). This is particularly pertinent in group care situations in which unequal distribution of

resources occurs (Hay and Ross, 1982). To date, the majority of research focusing on conflict

resolution has been conducted with children aged three years and over. Isolated studies conducted

with infants and toddlers have explored conflict and conflict resolution. These studies, however,

have focused on unfamiliar peers rather than friends (e.g. Caplan et al., 1991; Hay and Ross, 1982).

This study represents a first attempt to examine conflict origins and conflict resolution strategies

among toddler friendships. It also seeks to identify differences between the number and nature of

conflict events and subsequent conflict resolution strategies used, between two pairs of identified

friends and two pairs of acquaintances. Acquaintances constitute familiar peers whom have

interacted and engaged with one another over a period of time without forming a friendship. They

differ from non-friends who are unfamiliar to one another (Hay and Ross, 1982). Finally, through

the use of one boy pair and one girl pair in each of the friend and acquaintance categories, the role

of gender will also be explored.

As growing numbers of young children spend extended periods of time in group care settings,

the peer relationships of infants and toddlers becomes increasingly significant (Howes, 1988;

Whaley and Rubenstein, 1994). Consequently, social interactions and the ability to engage with

peers are vital skills for toddlers to acquire (Wittmer, 2008). An inherent component of social inter-

action is conflict, and the ability to resolve disputes in amicable ways (Laursen et al., 2001).

Children who fail to develop these skills are at risk of social rejection and maladjustment (Laursen

et al., 2001; Newcomb et al., 1993). Thus, there is a need to understand the origins of conflict

within this specific group and the methods used to resolve disagreements.

Previous research has indicated that toddlers, particularly those participating in prior to school

settings, develop a range of relationships, including friendships (Howes, 1983, 1988). Interactions

within this specific group have been found to be qualitatively different according to the constructs

of familiarity and preference (Gleason and Hohmann, 2006; Greve, 2009; Howes, 1983). To date,

friendship studies conducted with toddlers have focused on the fundamental attributes of friend-

ship, including reciprocity and cooperation (Howes, 1996; Whaley and Rubenstein, 1994; Wittmer,

2008; Vandell and Mueller, 1980). Further, research has consistently concentrated on the presence

of positive friendship features, such as the six characteristics identified by Whaley and Rubenstein

(1994) in their study of toddlers: helping, loyalty, intimacy, similarity, sharing and ritual activity.

An area requiring further investigation is the negative aspects of toddlers friendships, particularly

the role of conflict, the importance of which is emphasized in friendship research conducted with

older children and adults (Gottman, 1983; Hartup et al., 1988; Hinde et al., 1985; Schneider, 2000;

Sebanc, 2003). This study seeks to provide a beginning understanding of this construct with regards

to toddlers.

The role of conflict and conflict resolution in young childrens development

Conflict is concerned with an opposition between two individuals (Hartup et al., 1988: 1590).

Conflicts are characterized by events in which one person resists, retaliates, or protests the actions

of another (Chen et al., 2001). Conflicts among young children typically involve the first child

attempting to influence the second, followed by the second child opposing the first (Hartup et al.,

1988; Hay and Ross, 1982; Rizzo, 1992). In childhood, conflicts are aligned with disagreements,

which are manifested in different ways, depending upon the setting in which they occur (Hartup

and Laursen, 1993) as well as the age of the children involved (Chen et al., 2001). In contrast,

aggression encompasses deliberate acts of verbal or physical violence intending to do harm(Peterson, 2004). While aggression may accompany disagreements, it is not in itself a form of


4/18

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett 147

conflict. Essentially, conflicts are emotional exchanges during which one individual objects to

an occurrence involving another individual. This is the framework that will be applied in the

present study.

It is widely recognized that social interactions in early childhood are important for long-term

development (Chen et al., 2001; Hay, 1984; Mize and Ladd, 1990). A specific component of social

interactions, which has been linked to moral and social learning, is conflict (Chen et al., 2001). The

incidence of conflict in social settings provides opportunities for the development of conflict reso-

lution skills that incorporate the perspectives of others (Chen et al., 2001; Hartup et al., 1988;

Shantz and Shantz, 1985). The resolution of conflict reflects social and relationship processes, with

children who are able to resolve disagreements in amicable ways having a greater chance of par-

ticipating in friendships and gaining peer acceptance (Joshi, 2008). Further, links between conflict

resolution and social and emotional development have led to a growing understanding of the positive

role conflict processes play in friendship adjustment (Adams and Laursen, 2007; Hazen and

Brownell, 1999). Piaget (1932) identified the importance of conflict for developmental change

when considered in the context of disagreements leading to cognitive shifts in understandings. Peer

conflicts, particularly those occurring within dyadic relationships, are thus increasingly seen as

important, if not necessary contributors, to cognitive, moral and social development (Chen et al.,

2001; Doppler-Bourassa et al., 2008; Laursen et al., 2001; Shantz, 1987; Shantz and Hobart, 1989).

Variables that influence conflict and conflict resolution

Past studies have identified differences in conflict and conflict resolution according to key child

characteristics. Chen and colleagues (2001) have noted age and development progressions with

regards to conflict origins, and their subsequent resolution. Differences have also been found

according to gender (Hartup and Laursen, 1993). Additionally, relationship characteristics have

been found to influence the manifestation of conflict events and their resolution (Eisenberg and

Garvey, 1981; Fonzi et al., 1993; Gottman, 1983; Hartup et al., 1988, 1993; Nelson and Aboud,

1985; Vespo, 1991). Overall, results have indicated qualitative differences between the conflict

resolution tools or strategies employed by children in accordance with their developmental capac-

ity, gender and relational status.

Age. Relationships at all ages and developmental levels contain elements of conflict (Chen et al.,

2001; Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Shantz, 1987). A review of the research, however, suggests that

both the nature of these conflicts, as well as childrens approaches to conflict resolution, differ

depending on the age of the children involved. Studies addressing conflict within infant and toddler

interactions have identified the primary cause of disputes as objects, with disagreements stemming

from children attempting to exert control over the play environment (Caplan et al., 1991; Hay and

Ross, 1982). Similarly, research addressing the origins of conflict among preschool children has

also identified the possession of objects as representing the largest contributor to peer disagree-

ments (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Hartup et al., 1988; Shantz, 1987), with actions or inactions

also contributing to peer conflicts in this age group.

As with sources of conflict, approaches to conflict resolution differ according to developmental

capacity and age. In studies of toddlers, yielding, which involves one child relinquishing control of

an object to another, is the predominant form of conflict resolution (Caplan et al., 1991; Chen et al.,

2001). With regards to preschool-aged children, conflict resolution has been linked with the use of

prosocial actions, including explanations and negotiations (Chen et al., 2001; Sackin and Thelen,1984).


5/18


Gender. Gender differences have been observed with regards to conflict and conflict resolution

from early to middle childhood, with varied results. Caplan et al. (1991) reported that the predomi-

nance of girls in a toddler triad resulted in twice as many conflicts as those dominated by boys. In

contrast, a study of preschool-aged children found that boys were more likely to engage in conflict

than girls (Hartup and Laursen, 1993). Similarly, in two studies of first and second grade children,

boys were again found to engage in increased conflict events compared with girls (Shantz, 1986;

Shantz and Shantz, 1985). With regards to conflict resolution, toddler triads dominated by boys

displayed more prosocial resolutions and were more likely to engage in peaceful interactions fol-

lowing conflict than those containing a majority of girls (Caplan et al., 1991). However, in a study

of preschool-aged children, Hartup et al. (1988) found that gender was irrelevant with respect to

conflict resolution. Together, these findings suggest that while gender may be a significant variable

influencing conflict events, its impact may differ depending on the age of the children involved.

Friendship status. The manifestation and subsequent resolution of conflict is yet to be studied with

regards to toddler friends. To date, research exploring conflict, and its subsequent resolution with

toddlers, has been mostly limited to studies involving unfamiliar peers. An examination of the

limited number of studies examining conflict among toddler-aged peers highlights the potential for

variation in both conflict and resolution as a function of relational quality as well as familiarity.

Hay and Ross (1982) in their study of toddler non-friends, for instance, reported links between

increasing familiarity of toddler peers and conflict termination. In particular, peers who had devel-

oped an acquaintance relationship, having remained in the same dyad for four sessions, were more

likely to display consistent patterns of yielding. This indicates that conflict resolution strategies are

a factor of familiarity of particular dyads, highlighting the potential for differences between friends

and acquaintances in their approach to resolving conflict.

Friendship status and conflict have been explored in studies throughout the latter preschool and

early school years. A review of this research shows differences between conflict events and their

subsequent resolution according to relationship status. While some researchers have shown con-

flicts between friends in the latter early childhood years to be longer and more frequent than

between non-friends (Gottman, 1983), others have found higher levels of conflict among pre-

school-aged acquaintances than friends (Vespo, 1991). Studies relating to conflict resolution from

preschool through to the early school years have highlighted the qualitatively different nature of

conflict resolution strategies used by friends when compared to acquaintances (Fonzi et al., 1997;

Hartup et al., 1988; Nelson and Aboud, 1985). The potential for variation across friend and non-

friend dyads, and friend and acquaintance dyads, further highlights the need for research with tod-

dlers to extend beyond the current non-friend focus.

Goals of the current study

The purpose of this study was to gain greater understanding of the conflict origins and conflict

resolution strategies used by toddlers. This study builds on previous research by examining key

individual (i.e. gender) and relational (i.e. friends versus acquaintances) characteristics that have

been identified among older children as contributing to variations in conflict. Specifically, a

multiple case study design was employed to examine the role of friendship status and gender in

toddlers approach to conflict and conflict resolution. For the purposes of this study, conflict was

defined as the first child attempting to influence the second, followed by the second child opposing

the first (Hartup et al., 1988; Hay and Ross, 1982; Rizzo, 1992). An analysis of conflict events and

the resolution tools used by toddlers to alleviate conflict will be provided. Additionally, antecedent

and consequent events were analysed to determine common triggers for conflict, and possible


6/18


patterns of interaction behaviours following conflict resolution. Four research questions were

addressed: 1) What are the origins of, and components of, conflict in toddler friend and acquaint-

ance pairs? 2) What are the conflict resolution strategies used by toddler friend and acquaintance

pairs? 3) What are the differences between the conflicts and subsequent conflict resolutions

engaged in by toddler pairs, identified as friends and acquaintances? 4) What gender differences

are evident with regards to conflict and conflict resolution strategies implemented?

Method

Participants

Eight children were involved in the study, ranging in age from two years and two months to two

years and ten months. All pairs comprised same sex groupings, one male pair and one female pair

of friends and acquaintances. All children had been attending the child care centre in which the

study was conducted for over 12 months. All eight children were from middle to upper socioeco-

nomic backgrounds. All children had developed verbal communication skills to varying degrees.Speech patterns ranged from two to five word utterances. Additionally, all children were consid-

ered by the university trained staff at the setting to have communication abilities within the normal

range expected of children aged two to three years.

This study utilized teacher nominations to identify friend and acquaintance pairs. Whilst past

studies of friendship have been dominated by the use of child report, due to the age of the partici-

pants, teacher nominations were considered a more reliable measure. Two university-qualified

early childhood teachers in the child care setting were asked to observe childrens behaviour over

a two-week period, in addition to drawing on their prior knowledge of the group. Friends were

considered to be children who not only played with each other consistently, but also sought out one

another as playmates. These relationships also needed to be characterized predominantly by posi-tive interactions. These criteria have been previously used in order to identify the existence of

friendship in studies of toddlers (Howes, 1983; Vandell and Mueller, 1980; Whaley and Rubenstein,

1994). Agreement between teachers was required for children to be considered friends.

The same two teachers nominated acquaintances. A specific criterion for the nomination of an

acquaintance pair was similar attendance patterns. These children needed to have been known to

one another, but have no history of being preferred play companions. Agreement between teachers

was again necessary for children to be considered acquaintances. A letter describing the purpose

and procedures of the study was sent to parents and final selection of participants was dependent

upon parental permission.

Pair Awas a girl friendship pair. Jane1was two years and seven months, and had been attendingthe centre for two years and one month. Lily was two years and six months, and had been attending

the centre for one year and six months. This pair of children attended the centre together two days

per week.

Pair Bwas a boy friendship pair. David was two years and six months and had been attending

the centre for one year and six months. Billy was aged two years and three months and had been

attending the centre for one year and two months. This pair of children attended the centre together

one day per week at the time of the study. However, they had previously been enrolled and attended

on three common days.

Pair Cincluded two girls who were identified as acquaintances. Maya was aged two years and

two months and had been attending the centre for one year and ten months. Kelli was two years andnine months and had been attending the centre for one year and two months. They were at the

centre together three days per week.


7/18


Pair Dincluded two boys who were identified as acquaintances. Jamie was two years and ten

months and had been attending the centre for one year and ten months. Luke was two years and two

months and had been attending the centre for one year and two months. This pair of children was

at the centre together three days per week.

The environment

Each pair was observed interacting in the home corner area of the two- to three-year-olds room at

their child care centre. All eight children involved in the study enjoyed playing in the home corner,

having engaged in symbolic home corner play (i.e. cooking and pretending to drink tea) on

numerous occasions over the two months prior to the commencement of the study. In order to

ensure familiarity for the participants, the furniture in this space was maintained, comprising: two

child sized couches, a buffet, a long shelf (empty), a small table with two chairs, a child sized sink,

a child sized oven and a baby crib. The following items were added to the area prior to each obser-

vational session: one plate, one spoon, one fork, one knife, a bowl and a cup. Additionally, a large

white bowl containing a plastic tomato, a piece of bread and a slice of pizza were placed in the

middle of the table. One doll was placed in the crib. Finally, a small amount of playdough was

placed in one mound in the bowl. In order to prompt conflict, no duplicate toys were provided.

A camera was positioned on a tripod facing the play space and was situated 3 metres from the

children. This was clearly visible to the children. The camera was equipped with a wide-angled

zoom lens to allow accurate recording of childrens behavioural interactions.

Procedure

When conducting observational research with toddlers, researchers need to be particularly cogni-

zant of the fact that their presence may impact on childrens naturally occurring behaviours and

interactions (Degotardi, 2008; Graue and Walsh, 1995). Prior to the commencement of the study, a

number of strategies were adopted to ensure children were familiar and comfortable with the

research environment. To ensure children were familiar with the camera prior to filming, the camera

was set up and left in the room near the play corner for two weeks leading up to the commencement

of the study. The children involved in the study were familiar with the researcher as she worked in

the child care centre. To ensure familiarity with the research environment, each five-minute session

was conducted in the home corner of the room that the children were enrolled in.

The four pairs of children were observed for five minutes on four occasions, over a two-week

period. Children remained within the same pair over the four observational periods. Prior to each

session, each of the children was asked if they would like to come and play in the home corner area.

It was explained that it would just be the two of them and they would be recorded using the camera.

One of two staff members from the two- to three-year-olds room was present during each observa-

tional session. They were instructed to intervene only in the event of possible injury or extreme

distress and to refrain from directing the childrens behaviour and actions. Whilst they were free to

interact with the children, they were instructed not to initiate contact.

Ethical considerations. Studies which involve young children as active participants pose particular

challenges for educators and researchers alike. Ethical governance requires researchers to adopt

procedures and practices that incorporate informed consent. When young children are involved

the term assent is typically used (Docket and Perry, 2010), which involves gaining childrensongoing agreement (or dissent) within concrete research settings or situations (Cocks, 2006).

Even though consent was given by the parents of the children involved in the study, consent


8/18


was also obtained from the child participants before the commencement of each session. Children

in the current study used both verbal and non-verbal (i.e. hand gestures and facial expressions)means to indicate their willingness to participate, with all eight children indicating an eagerness to

be involved in the structured play sessions.

Table 1. Coding scheme used to analyse conflict events

Issue A description of the origins of the conflict, highlighting whether theevent was primarily a result of a possession of an object (objectoriented), or socially motivated, and thus an attempt at behaviouralcontrol.

Conflict duration Conflicts were timed and the duration of each event recorded. Themean conflict duration was established for each pair and for friends andacquaintances. This was coded as a percentage.

Conflict event Coders recorded each exchange during the conflict event. The actionof each child was transcribed and then coded as verbal, physical or bothverbal and physical.

Resolution strategy Events engaged in by the pair immediately preceding conflict termination.Coders assigned each resolution strategy to one of five categories:yielding (relinquishing control), standing firm (use of verbal or physicalbehaviour to insist on the original goal), disengagement (turning awayor distraction), bargaining and negotiation (modification of position or

suggest alternative) or intervention by the teacher (Hartup et al., 1988).

Conflict outcome This referred to the degree of equity reached through conflictresolution. The categories which were coded included: winners/losers(characterized by a non-equitable solution in which a clear distinctionbetween the child who obtains the desired outcome and the child whodoes not), partial equity (one child receives the desired outcome whilstthe other also obtains something desirable, but not equal to the firstchild), compromise (this was considered to be an equitable solution).

Affective intensity Conflict events at their peak were coded as either high intensity or lowintensity. The use of only two categories is a response to difficultiesfaced by Hartup et al. (1988).

Aggression The absence or presence of aggression was coded. Aggressivebehaviours included: verbal aggression, physical aggression, threatgestures (unsuccessful aggressive attempts), destructive behaviour andverbal threats.

Prior interaction Coders recorded the type of interaction children were engaged in priorto each conflict, according to one of three categories: solitary play,parallel play or cooperative play. Precedent events were consideredto be those occurring within the 30 seconds prior to conflict. Post-data collection and coding the number of categories for play type wasreduced to two: parallel and cooperative play. Parallel play was definedas the pursuit of similar activities without a common or integrated goal.

Cooperative play was considered to be interactions and engagementin the pursuit of a common goal. The design of the study effectivelyensured, through materials provided, that children were engaged in atleast parallel play.

Post-conflict interaction The type of interaction children engaged in immediately followingconflict resolution, up to 30 seconds post conflict, was recorded. Eachwas classified according to the same categories used for precedentevents: parallel play or cooperative play.


9/18


Measures

The video recordings of each five-minute observational session were examined in order to identify

episodes of conflict. The video data were viewed to identify instances of conflict. Interactions

were transcribed according to predetermined categories, designed to identify behaviours sur-

rounding conflict events. Table 1 outlines the coding scheme used by the researchers, based on adata-coding schema employed by Hartup et al. (1988). Nine constructs were used to analyse

conflict events: issue, conflict duration, conflict event, resolution strategy, conflict outcome,

affective intensity, aggression, prior interaction and post-conflict interaction. Conflicts were

defined as the first child attempting to influence the second, followed by the second child resist-

ing or opposing the first (Hartup et al., 1988; Shantz, 1987). Episodes meeting this definition

were transcribed according to actions and reactions of each child. In addition, precedent actions

and subsequent actions (post-conflict) were also examined. Due to the absence of conflict during

eight peer interaction sessions, the researcher reviewed visual footage in order to determine the

percentage of time children engaged in parallel and cooperative play.

In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, a predetermined set of behavioural categories wasused, with 25 percent of observational sessions examined and assessed by a second coder. 2The

level of consistency among coders was 91 percent overall, indicating a high level of intercoder

reliability.

Results and discussion

Three of the four pairs of children participated in between two and eight conflict episodes over the

four sessions. The remaining pair engaged in no conflict events. In total, 14 conflicts were recorded

across the 16 sessions, with the mean number of conflicts for a single pair, in a single session, just

less than 1 (M= 0.875, range 12). Overall, pairs spent an average of 5 percent of each sessioninvolved in conflict. Object oriented conflicts accounted for 79 percent of total conflict events,

with behaviour control origins equating to 21 percent. Interestingly, while object conflicts occurred

more often than behavioural control conflicts, they tended to be shorter in duration (mean duration

13.4 seconds vs 29.7 seconds, respectively). The most common method of communication during

conflict events was the use of both verbal and physical means, equating to a total of 71 percent of

all conflict events. Low intensity (71%) and an absence of aggression (64%) typified conflict

events. The most common conflict resolution strategy employed was standing firm (50%), fol-

lowed by yielding (43%) and bargaining/negotiating (7%). A win/lose conflict outcome occurred

in 86 percent of events, with partial equity evident in 14% of events. Table 2 presents patterns of

conflict and conflict resolution for each pair. Results are presented with regards to each pair;subsequent comparisons will be made on the basis of friendship status and gender.

Analysis for Pair A: Girl friend dyad

Two conflict events occurred over the four sessions, one in each of the third and fourth sessions.

This possibly indicates increasing familiarity with the situation as a precursor to conflict for

this pair of friends. The conflict duration for the two events was 46 seconds in total, equating to

4 percent of total time spent together (see Table 2). The first conflict was concerned with behav-

ioural control and lasted 16 seconds, equating to 5 percent of Session 3, while the second conflict

lasted 30 seconds, representing 10 percent of the time spent together in the final session. Prior toboth conflict events, parallel play was evident. This was also the case for post conflict interac-

tions. A description and analysis of each conflict is outlined in Table 3.


10/18


Analysis for Pair B: Boy friend dyad

No conflicts were observed between this pair in any of the four sessions (see Table 2). They accom-

modated each others desires and needs, by taking turns with equipment and offering materials to

one another. They also responded to comments made by one another. For example, in Session 2,

David sat down and asked three times wheres my playdough?. Billy broke some dough off his

mound and handed it to David, along with some other materials. Parallel play was engaged in forthe majority of the sessions (97%), with cooperative play constituting just 3 percent of the time

spent together. Whilst there was some language used throughout interactions, this tended to be

comments on materials or reactions to ones own actions, for instance, dropping of the playdough

resulted in uh oh several times. It is interesting that no conflicts occurred in any of the observa-

tions conducted with this pair. This could be related to the willingness that both children displayed

in accommodating the others needs and desires. It is also possible that conflict within toddler pairs

is a factor of specific dyadic relationships (see Caplan et al., 1991).

Analysis for Pair C: Girl acquaintance dyad

Eight conflicts occurred over the four sessions, two occurring in each session, representing the

largest amount of conflict across the four pairs. Conflict duration totalled 156 seconds, equating to

13 percent of the total time spent together. The first three sessions solely comprised parallel play,

Table 2. Conflict and conflict resolution results for each pair

Pair AGirl frienddyad

Pair Bfriend dyad

Pair CGirl acquaintancedyad

Pair DBoy acquaintancedyad

Total conflict Total number of conflicts 2 0 8 4

% of time spent in conflict 3.9% 0% 13% 2.75%

Conflict issue

Object oriented 50% 0% 62.5% 100%

Behavioural control 50% 0% 37.5% 0%

Conflict event

Verbal 0% 0% 12.5% 25%

Physical 0% 0% 25% 25%

Both verbal and physical 100% 0% 62.5% 50%

Affective intensity High intensity 50% 0% 37.5% 0%

Low intensity 50% 0% 62.5% 100%

Aggression present 100% 0% 37.5% 0%

Conflict outcome

Win/lose 50% 0% 87.5% 100%

Partial equity 50% 0% 12.5% 0%

Resolution strategy

Yielding 50% 0% 25% 75%

Standing firm 50% 0% 62.5% 25% Bargaining/negotiation 0% 0% 12.5% 0%

Note: The highlighted figures are not in line with the construct.


11/18


whilst the fourth included cooperative play, representing 41 percent of the play session. Increased

interaction between the pair may be in response to the growing familiarity of play partners and the

play space. The greatest amount of conflict between the pair occurred in Session 1, representing 30

percent of time together, conflict reduced throughout Sessions 2 and 3 (9% and 4%, respectively),

with a slight increase in Session 4 (13%) (see Table 2). Increased interaction inherent in coopera-

tive play may have given rise to the increase in conflict in the final session. A detailed description

and analysis of each conflict situation is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Examples of conflict situations and resolution strategies for each pair of children

Vignette Analysis of conflict Conflict resolution

Pair A: Jane & Lily

Conflict 1 Jane places some playdough on a plate inthe cupboard. Lily opens the cupboarddoor and tries to place something in it. Janecloses the cupboard door saying no. Lilytries to reopen the door. Jane pushes Lilyout of the way and stands with her backto the cupboard door repeating no. Lilymoves back to the table.

Both physicaland verbal meanswere used, withaggression evident,whilst intensity waslow.

Standing firm wasemployed by Jane,with a win/loseoutcome achieved.

Conflict 2 Lily sits on a chair. Jane says its my chairwhilst leaning on Lily. Jane says its mychar, my chair and tries to climb onto theback of the chair. Lily remains seated. Janesays Its my chair, move Lily. She reaches

over and tries to take a bowl of playdoughfrom Lily. Lily says no, my playdough andholds onto the bowl. Jane grabs the bowl.Lily remains in the chair and Jane moves tothe table.

Began as a conflictover one objectbut soon escalatedto include asecond object.

Characterized byboth verbal andphysical means.Aggression waspresent andaffective intensitywas high.

Yielding displayedby both Jane andLily, resultingin each gainingcontrol over one

of the conflictitems, a chair anda bowl filled withplaydough.

Pair C: Maya & Kelli

Conflict 1(Session 1)

Maya picks up a bowl from in front of Kelli.Kelli takes the bowl from Maya.

Solely physicalmeans are usedduring this

interaction.Aggression isabsent and affectiveintensity is low.

Maya yieldscontrol of thebowl to Kelli

with a win/loseoutcome achieved.


Maya sits in a chair. Kelli says thatsMummys chair whilst pushing Maya to thenext chair. She repeats thats Mummyschair. Maya stands and touches the backof the same chair. Kelli moves Mayas handand repeats thats Mummys chair. Mayatouches the back of the chair again. Kelli

removes Mayas hand saying hey.

Both physical andverbal means wereused. Intensitywas high withaggression evident.

Standing firm wasemployed by Kelliwith a win/loseoutcome achieved.


12/18


Analysis for Pair D: Boy acquaintance dyad

Four conflicts were recorded over the four sessions: none in the first, two in the second and one

in each of the third and fourth sessions (see Table 2). The childrens play was predominantly

parallel, whilst some verbal interaction was evident, this was centred on describing objects and,at times, actions. In general, comments appeared to be self-directed. All conflicts shared the

following characteristics: each was centred on an object, all were of low intensity with no

aggression evident, and parallel play was recorded prior to, and following, each conflict event

(see Table 3). Conflict outcome was also consistently win/lose, with Jamie winning on each of

the four occasions. Yielding was present during three of the four conflict resolutions, with Luke

consistently yielding control of each object to the other. Jamie utilized the conflict resolution

strategy of standing firm in Session 3.

Whilst conflict events did not increase incrementally with each session, it is interesting to note

that the first session did not include conflict, as was the case for Pair A (Jane and Lily), with at least

one recorded in each subsequent play session. It is possible that familiarity with the objects, limitednumber of resources provided, and interactions within a specific dyad, results in increased oppor-

tunity for conflict. Limited verbal skills, typical of this age group, may also be related to the low

Vignette Analysis of conflict Conflict resolution


Maya picks up a piece of bread from infront of Kelli. Kelli snatches the bread

saying no. Maya says I want the bread.Kelli replies I got it.

Both verbal andphysical means are

used during thisevent. Intensity ishigh and aggressionis evident.

Kelli utilizesstanding firm

with a win/loseoutcome achieved.


Kelli picks up a piece of toast from in frontof Maya. Maya says no, thats mine. Kellitries to give Maya a slice of pizza. Mayasays no thats mine gesturing towards thetoast. Kelli again offers Maya the slice ofpizza, which she accepts.

Verbal meanswere used duringthis conflict event.Intensity was lowand aggressionabsent.

Bargaining andnegotiationemployed by Kelliwith a partialequity outcome.

Pair D: Jamie & Luke


Luke picks up a cup from the table. Jamietakes the cup saying mine. Luke picks upa bowl.

Both verbal andphysical means areused. Aggression isabsent and intensitylow.

Luke yieldspossession of thecup to Jamie with awin/lose outcomeachieved.


Jamie takes a bowl from Luke and placesit in a cupboard. Closing the door Jamiestands with his back against the cupboard.Luke says no, no Jamie stop holding hishand up. Jami maintains his position. Lukemoves to open another cupboard before

returning to the first. He says no to Jamieand shakes his hand. Jamie turns aroundand takes the bowl from the cupboardmoving away from Luke.

Both verbal andphysical means areused during thisevent. Intensity islow and aggressionis absent.

Jamie utilizesstanding firmwith a win/loseoutcome achieved.

Table 3. (Continued)


13/18


intensity, short duration and limited exchanges in each conflict. Age may have also played a role,

with Jamie the older of the pair winning each of the conflicts.

Gender and friendship status comparisons on measures of conflictand conflict resolution

Friends versus acquaintances. Acquaintances engaged in more conflicts than friends, accounting for

87.5 percent of all conflict events (see Table 4). This is consistent with findings reported by Vespo

(1991) in a study of preschool-aged children. Acquaintances predominantly engaged in object-oriented conflicts (75%), while friends were equally as likely to participate in conflicts over objects

and behavioural control issues. In studies of non-friend and acquaintance toddlers, the origin of

conflicts has been reported as primarily object oriented (Caplan et al., 1991; Chen et al., 2001; Hay

and Ross, 1982). Whilst studies of preschool-aged children have indicated similar findings,

increases in behavioural control conflict origins are also reported (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981;

Shantz, 1987). Differences in conflict origins between friends and acquaintances further highlight

the social nature of conflict. While it appears that the form of conflict is partially a function of the

relational status of the dyad involved, further research is needed.

The presence of aggression differed according to friendship status, with 100 percent of conflicts

engaged in by friends involving aggression, whereas only one in four conflictual events withacquaintance pairs included some form of aggression. Furthermore, friendship pairs were found to

engage in equal numbers of low and high intensity events, with acquaintances predominantly

Table 4. Conflict and conflict resolution according to friendship status and gender

Friends Acquaintances Boys Girls

Total conflict

Total number of conflicts 2 12 4 10

% of total conflict events 14.3% 87.5% 29% 71%

% of time spent in conflict 2% 8% 1.4% 8.7%

Conflict issue

Object oriented 50% 75% 100% 60%

Behavioural control 50% 25% 0% 40%

Conflict event

Verbal 0% 8% 0% 10%

Physical 0% 25% 25% 20%

Both verbal and physical 100% 67% 75% 70%

Affective intensity

High intensity 50% 25% 0% 40% Low intensity 50% 75% 100% 60%

Aggression present 100% 25% 0% 50%

Conflict outcome

Win/lose 50% 92% 100% 80%

Partial equity 50% 8% 0% 20%

Resolution strategy

Yielding 50% 42% 75% 30%

Standing firm 50% 50% 25% 60% Bargaining/negotiation 0% 8% 0% 10%


14/18


participating in low intensity conflicts (75%). These findings contradict those reported in studies

conducted with preschool-aged children (Hartup et al., 1988; Sebanc, 2003), where similar levels

of aggression were present in conflicts involving both friends and acquaintances. Preschool-aged

friends are also more likely to engage in a greater proportion of low intensity events than acquaint-

ances (Hartup et al., 1988). Inconsistencies in findings across age groups further illustrate the need

for more large-scale studies examining the role of conflict in toddler friendships.

Conflict resolution and subsequent outcomes were also found to differ, to varying degrees,

according to friendship status. The strategies employed by friends, with regards to conflict resolu-

tion, were equally distributed between yielding and standing firm. Acquaintances also displayed

similar divisions between yielding (42%) and standing firm (50%), with bargaining/negotiation

also occurring on one occasion (8%). This finding builds on previous research conducted with

toddler-aged non-friends (Caplan et al., 1991), and acquaintances (Chen et al., 2001), where

yielding has been the predominant method of resolving conflicts. Hartup et al. (1988) reported

that preschool-aged friends were more likely to utilize disengagement, while acquaintances

predominantly employed standing firm as the preferred conflict resolution strategy. The conflicts

of acquaintances overwhelmingly resulted in win/lose outcomes (92%), while conflict outcomes

for friends were equally distributed between win/lose and partial equity, a pattern of results similar

to those reported by Hartup et al. (1988).

Gender differences on measures of conflict and conflict resolution. As was the case with comparisons

made between friends and acquaintances, several differences were found among toddler-aged

boys and girls approaches to conflict and conflict resolution. Overall, girl dyads engaged in con-

flict more often than boy dyads, spending increased total amounts of time involved in conflict

events (see Table 4). Similar findings with regards to toddler triads were reported by Caplan et al.

(1991), where triads predominated by girls engaged in twice as many conflicts as triads containing

a boy majority. In contrast, research conducted on preschool-aged children has indicated an

increased prevalence of conflict in boy dyads (Hartup and Laursen, 1993; Sebanc, 2003), or a lack

of distinction according to gender (Hartup et al., 1988). Studies of children in the first years of

school have indicated higher levels of conflict between boys than girls (Shantz, 1986; Shantz and

Shantz, 1985). Findings from the current study, coupled with those reported by Caplan et al. (1991),

attest to the possible interaction between age and gender when it comes to conflict events. The

developmental shift from one where girls dominate conflict events, to one where conflict is greater

among boys, is an interesting phenomenon and worthy of further study.

A further difference in the conflict events engaged in by boy and girl dyads was the extent to

which verbal means were used. In boy dyads, one and two word utterances were used to express

objections and desires such as no and mine. In contrast, girl dyads used longer utterances

including not your playdough and no, my do it. Language use during conflict events was

higher between Maya and Kelli (Pair C) than other dyads, with this pair also engaging in the

largest number of conflicts over the four sessions (eight). Interestingly, increased language use

appeared to be linked with longer and more frequent conflicts, as indicated by the increased

number and duration of conflicts engaged in by girl dyads. However, it is difficult to determine

whether this was a factor of relationship status or gender on account of David and Billy (boy

friend dyad) engaging in no conflict events.

The conflicts arising in boys interactions were all centred on objects, with girl pair conflicts

centred on behavioural control (40%) (see Table 4). The use of both verbal and physical means

dominated conflicts of both genders. Boy dyads only engaged in low intensity conflict events.Whilst this was also the dominant intensity of girl dyads, high intensity events of this group


15/18


occurred in 40 percent of conflict interactions. Aggression was absent from the conflict events in

which boy dyads participated, yet was present in 50 percent of girls conflicts.

Conflict resolution strategies employed by boy and girl dyads also differed. The conflict reso-

lution strategy of yielding dominated boys conflict events (75%), with girls engaging in standing

firm the majority of the time (60%) (see Table 4). Regardless of the resolution strategy employed,

the most common conflict outcome was win/lose, accounting for 100 percent of boy and 80 per-

cent of girl dyad conflicts. However, girl dyad conflicts also resulted in partial equity outcomes

20 percent of the time. Boy dyads displayed consistent patterns of yielding and win/lose out-

comes, with Luke of Pair D yeilding on three occassions to Jamie. In each of the conflicts engaged

in by Pair D, Jamie was the winner. No such pattern was found with regards to girl dyad conflicts

or conflict resolutions.

Conclusions

Although conflict and conflict resolution among young children has been examined previously, the

nature of conflict amongst toddler-aged peers has received only limited attention. Further, the

potential for differences according to the relational characteristics of children involved, as well as

childrens gender, remains largely unknown. Findings from the current study go some way toward

filling this gap. Differences between conflicts and approaches to conflict resolution of friends and

acquaintances, and boys and girls, were observed in this study. It is important to note that all

conflicts were resolved by the children involved. Whilst one conflict involved a comment directed

to the teacher Mayas not listening, the response provided was well you need to talk to her about

it. This observation is in sharp contrast to previous reports that suggest two-year-olds only resolved

their own conflicts in 26.1 percent of events (Chen et al., 1991). Hay and Ross (1982), whilst

reporting a substantially lower number of conflicts in which intervention was required, also

indicated the need for external assistance in conflict resolution in 21 percent of toddler conflicts.

Slightly lower levels of adults intervention were reported by Hartup et al. (1988), with 10.3 percent

of preschool-aged childrens conflicts requiring the intervention of a third party in order to resolve

the conflict. One possible explanation for this finding is the dyadic-based structure of interactions.

In the previous studies cited, children interacted in triads or small groups, which may naturally lend

itself to more conflict, or conflicts that rely on more adult intervention in order to be resolved. The

way in which the toddlers interacted may also reflect the general climate of the child care centre

involved. Staff in the centre actively encourage children to first try and resolve issues, scaffolding

approaches where necessary. The apparent independence shown by the children involved in this

study in resolving their own conflicts is particularly noteworthy and offers some broad implications

for teaching practice.

Whilst differences between dyads can be seen with regards to friendship status and gender, they

are also evident in comparisons between each of the pairs, possibly related to interactions within

specific dyads. This is illustrated through fundamental differences of each pair on all constructs

associated with conflict and conflict resolution, to some degree or another. For instance, the boy

friend dyad engaged in no conflict events, while the boy acquaintance dyad engaged in four events

of low intensity and short duration. Further, the boy acquaintance pair displayed consistent patterns

of yielding in three of the four conflict events. Hay and Ross (1982) ascertained that the conflictual

actions of toddlers are directly related to those of their peers. Additionally, prior studies have

indicated that the actions of one child during conflict are directly related to the actions of the other

(Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Shantz, 1987). This indicates the possible influence of familiaritywithin dyads, and particular situations, on the nature of conflict events and their subsequent resolu-

tions. The findings further highlight the complex nature of conflict events and attest to the need for


16/18


teachers to consider the relational characteristics of children involved when helping them to resolve

their conflicts.

Lower levels of conflict may be attributed to the nature of the testing situation as well as the

difficulties of researching with toddlers. The current study adopted an observational technique

that had previously been employed with preschool-aged children (see Hartup et al., 1988).

According to Degotardi (2008), it is important that researchers spend periods of time in research

settings that involve young children, in order to ensure childrens familiarity with them and any

newly introduced equipment. The children in this study were very familiar with the researcher as

she was a staff member at the service where observations took place, yet there are no absolute

assurances that the presence of the researcher or video did not impact on the childrens natural

interactional patterns. While the children were playing in their natural environment, in the pres-

ence of their usual teachers, the mere presence of the camera automatically creates an unnatural

context (Degotardi, 2008).

Another possible contributor to conflict levels is the presence of only two children in the home

corner area of the classroom. The absence of other children in the room during filming is likely

to have impacted on individual pairs interactional patterns. Pellegrini (1998) discusses the

importance of conducting naturalistic observations with children in familiar spaces where they

spend extended periods of time. Whilst this study was conducted in the childrens usual child care

setting, the specific research situation was removed from their everyday experience of this space.

Naturalistic observations conducted during free-play situations, where children are free to

choose play objects, may paint a more accurate picture of conflictual interactions. It may be that

in these natural situations children are more motivated to try and protect and possess a toy of their

own choosing as opposed to one that has been provided by a teacher. Future research needs to

consider the use of naturalistic observations of children during free play sessions in order to gain

more accurate and representative data.

Through the use of four pairs of children, two friends and two acquaintances, the data set

derived is small, and results are exploratory. Although conclusions can be drawn with regards to

differences within the sample, it is difficult to generalize the findings beyond this point.

Nevertheless, findings from the current study identify differences in approaches to conflict and

conflict resolution as a function of both relational status and gender, and attest to the need for more

large-scale investigations. This is particularly important in light of the significant role conflict

resolution plays in childrens social, cognitive and moral development (Chen et al., 2001; Doppler-

Bourassa et al., 2008; Laursen et al., 2001; Shantz, 1987; Shantz and Hobart, 1989).

In conclusion, this study provides a beginning understanding of the manifestation of conflict

and its subsequent resolution, within toddler friendships. Differences in the number, origin, inten-

sity level, resolution strategies and outcomes have been identified in respect to both gender and

relational status. Through the use of a multiple case design, a greater understanding of the conflict

events, and their subsequent resolutions within specific dyads, has been provided.

Notes

1. Pseudonyms have been used for ease of reporting.

2. A second coder was employed to enhance reliability and did not participate in data collection.

References

Adams RE and Laursen B (2007) The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental.Journal of Family Psychology21(3): 445458.

Caplan M, Vespo J, Pedersen J and Hay DF (1991) Conflict and its resolution in small groups of one and two

year olds. Child Development62(6): 15131524.


17/18


Chen DW, Fein GG, Killen M and Tam H (2001) Peer conflicts of preschool children: Issues, resolution,

incidence, and age related patterns.Early Education and Development12(4): 523544.

Cocks AJ (2006) The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining childrens agreement to

research participation. Childhood13(2): 247266.

Degotardi S (2008) Looking out and looking in: Reflecting on conducting observational research in a child-

care nursery. The First Years: Nga Tau Tuatahi. New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education 10(2): 1519.

Dockett S and Perry B (2010) Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research,

DOI: 10.1007/s12187-010-9084-0.

Doppler-Bourassa E, Harkins DA and Mehta CM (2008) Emerging empowerment: Conflict resolution

intervention and preschool teachers reports of conflict behaviour.Early Education and Development

19(6): 885906.

Eisenberg AR and Garvey C (1981) Childrens use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse

Processes4: 149170.

Fonzi A, Schneider BH, Tani F and Tomada G (1997) Predicting childrens friendship status from their

dyadic interaction in structured situations of potential conflict. Child Development68(3): 496506.

Gleason TR and Hohmann LM (2006) Concepts of real and imaginary friendships in early childhood. SocialDevelopment15(1): 128144.

Gottman JM (1983) How children become friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development48(3): 186.

Greve A (2009) Friendships and participation among young children in a Norwegian kindergarten. In:

Berthelsen D, Brownlee J and Johansson E (eds)Participatory Learning in the Early Years. New York:

Routledge, 7892.

Hartup WW and Laursen B (1993) Conflict and context in peer relations. In: Hart CH (ed.) Children on

Playgrounds: Research Perspectives and Applications. Albany: State University of New York Press,

4484.

Hartup WW, Laursen B, Stewart MI and Eastenson A (1988) Conflict and the friendship relations of young

children. Child Development59(5): 15901600.Hay DF (1984) Social conflict in early childhood.Annals of Child Development1: 144.

Hay DF and Ross HS (1982) The social nature of early conflict. Child Development53(1): 105113.

Hazen N and Brownell C (1999) Peer relationships in early childhood: Current trends and future directions.

Early Education and Development10(3): 233240.

Hinde RA, Titmus G, Easton D and Tamplin A (1985) Incidence of friendship and behaviour with strong

associates versus nonassociates in preschoolers. Child Development56(1): 234245.

Howes C (1983) Patterns of friendship. Child Development54(4): 10411053.

Howes C (1988) Peer interactions of young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development53: 1 Serial No. 217.

Howes C (1996) The earliest friendships. In: Bukowski W, Newcomb A and Hartup W (eds) The Company

They Keep: Friendships in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge,6686.

Joshi A (2008) Conflict resolution between friends during middle childhood. The Journal of Genetic

Psychology169(2): 133148.

Laursen B, Finkelstein BD and Betts NT (2001) A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution.

Developmental Review21(4): 423449.

Mize J and Ladd GW (1990) Towards the development of successful social skills training for preschool

children. In: Asher SR and Cole JD (eds)Peer Rejection in Childhood. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 338361.

Nelson J and Aboud FE (1985) The resolution of social conflict between friends. Child Development56(4):

10091017.

Newcomb AF, Bukowski WM and Pattee L (1993) Childrens peer relations: A meta-analytic review ofpopular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status.Psychological Bulletin113(1):

99128.


18/18


Pellegrini AD (1998) Observational method in early childhood educational research. In: Saracho ON and

Pellegrini AD (eds)Issues in Early Childhood Educational Research. New York: Teachers College Press,

7692.

Peterson C (2004) Looking Forward through Childhood and Adolescence: Developmental Psychology.

Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

Piaget J (1932) The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Hartcourt Press.Rizzo TA (1992) The role of conflict in childrens friendship development. New Directions for Child

Development58: 93111.

Sackin S and Thelen E (1984) An ethological study of peaceful associative outcomes to conflict in preschool

children. Child Development55(3): 10981102.

Schneider BH (2000)Friends and Enemies: Peer Relations in Childhood. London: Arnold.

Sebanc AM (2003) The friendship features of preschool children: Links with prosocial behaviour and

aggression. Social Development12(2): 249268.

Shantz DW (1986) Conflict, aggression and peer status: An observational study. Child Development57(5):

13221332.

Shantz CU (1987) Conflicts between children. Child Development58(2): 283305.

Shantz CU and Hobart CJ (1989) Social conflict and development: Peers and siblings. In: Berndt TJ and LaddGW (eds)Peer Relationships in Child Development.Wiley Series on Personality Processes. New York:

Wiley-Interscience, 7194.

Shantz CU and Shantz DW (1985) Conflict between children: Socio-cognitive and sociometric correlates.

New Directions for Child Development29: 321.

Vandell DL and Mueller EC (1980) Peer play and friendship during the first two years. In: Foot HC, Chapman

AJ and Smith JR (eds)Friendship and Social Relations in Children. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons,

181208.

Vespo JE (1991) Features of preschoolers relationships.Early Child Development and Care68(1): 1926.

Whaley K and Rubenstein T (1994) How toddlers do friendship: A descriptive analysis of naturally occurring

friendships in a group childcare setting.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships11(3): 383400.

Wittmer DS (2008) Focusing on Peers: The Importance of Relationships in the Early Years. Washington,DC: Zero to Three.

Documents

Journal of Early Childhood Research 2012 Ashby 145 61