Learning to Argue with Parents and Peers

ANN R. EISENBERG

Division of Behavioral and Cultural SciencesThe University of Texas at San Antonio78297 Texas, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: The infant's first natural response when faced with opposition or when heopposes others' actions is to cry. As this kind of behavior becomes ineffective, theresponses of the individuals with which he interacts force him to adopt more conventional- especially verbal - patterns of arguing, leading him to rational argumentation. Thepurpose of the present paper is to observe progressions in children's earliest verbalarguments and to see how and when they learn to adjust their strategies for different kindsof opponents (peers; parents; other adults). In order to examine the emergence of suchpersuasive strategies, and their distribution according to the different categories of oppo-nents, systematic audiotape recordings of two Spanish-speaking gitls between 2 and 3years were analyzed. The data suggest that, although there were some differences in howthe girls argued with parents versus peers, they were only beginning to adjust their speechto make it appropriate for one or the other type of listener. In general, they resorted to onedominant strategy for all listeners (insist, repeat, cry, scream, ... ). Each girl, however,developed a small number of less frequently used strategies that she reserved for asubcategory of opponents. For example, one of them, Nancy, only threatened and insultedpeers, while the other, Marisa, only used "please" and a temporizing strategy with parents.The girls used less adaptive, more agressive strategies (e.g. threats and insults) with theirpeers. With one exception, all of the girls' moves were self-centered. In fact, the girls hadnot yet reached the stage of rational argumentation.

KEY WORDS: Rational argumentation, development, opponents, peers, parents, persua-sive strategies, self-centration.

Conflicts between children and the other individuals who live in theirworld are inevitable virtually from birth. As early as the first few days oflife, an infant is likely to find himself in opposition to some action takenon his behalf. Perhaps his mother tries to give him his bath when he wouldrather stay warm and dry. Similarly, he is likely to find himself faced withopposition. He wants to continue to nurse, but his mother needs to answerthe telephone or attend to the needs of a sibling. As the infant's interest inthe world around him increases, the likelihood that conflicts of interestwill arise increases. As infants become toddlers and begin to assert theirindependence and autonomy, conflicts become even more frequent. Nomatter what parents suggest or ask, the child's response is "No!" Patterson(1980) estimates that three major parent-child conflicts occur every hour.

Conflicts also permeate interactions between young children and theirpeers. The average rate of conflict among preschool peers, which increases

Argumentation 1(1987) 113-125.© 1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.

ANN EISENBERG

as social participation increases (Dawe, 1934; Garvey, 1984; Green,1933), has been reported as one conflict per child every 5 minutes (Jersildand Markey, 1935). Furthermore, in interacting with peers, young childrenmay find themselves in opposition for the first time with an opponent whois as poor as they are in understanding an opponent's position.

The infant's natural response when faced with opposition or when heopposes another's action is to cry. Eventually, however, the child findsthat crying becomes increasingly ineffective. The responses of the individ-uals he interacts with force him to convert his natural form of oppositionand re-requesting into more conventional patterns. As his ability toexpress himself verbally increases, he finds himself faced with the taskof finding additional strategies for both responding to opposition andformulating his own opposition. In other words, at the same time the childis learning to use language to ask, inform, and request, he also begins tolearn to argue.

The focus of this paper is the verbal arguments that children engage inwith their parents, peers, and other individuals with whom they interact.An argument is defined as occurring any time one individual verballystates his opposition to another individual's statement, request, or action.Although arguments may often lead to aggressive or disruptive behavior,the type of arguments of interest here are "rational" ones. In rationalargumentation, participants support their positions with evidence andwork toward reconciliation or compromise (Garvey, 1984). The goal ofmature argumentation is to work toward agreement without seriouslydisrupting the flow of interaction or creating a break in the amicablerelationship between participants. Although young children frequently failto achieve that goal in the course of their arguments, through engaging inarguments they begin to learn socially acceptable strategies for obtainingtheir objectives and confronting opposition.

Conflict has an important place in the literature on child development.Piaget (1959) argues that arguments among peers place children in asituation where the comparison of divergent viewpoints is inevitable. Thus,according to Piaget, argument leads to intellectual cooperation and theincreased understanding of the self and others. Piaget also argues thatsocial conflict alerts the speaker to the need to maintain talk that is suitedto the opponent's informational needs. The need to make a topicallyrelevant contribution in an argument leads to topical coherence in othertypes of conversation.

Conflicts among parents and children and the way they are resolvedare also considered important in the development of other skills. Thechild's freedom to disagree - in other words, how parents respond todisagreement - has been found to be related to identity exploration, egodevelopment, and individuality (Grotevant and Cooper, 1983; 1985).Parents' techniques for responding to children's opposition, on the other

114

LEARNING TO ARGUE

hand, have been found to be related to everything from aggressivebehavior (Parke and Collmer, 1975; Patterson, 1980) to moral orientation(Hoffman, 1975) to cognitive development (Perry and Perry, 1983; Hessand McDevitt, 1984). Garvey and Eisenberg (1986) also argue that socialconflicts between parents and children may be an important arena for theacquisition of verbal logic.

Furthermore, the examination of the changes in children's participationin arguments with both peers and parents can reveal their unfoldingknowledge of social relationships (Garvey, 1984). Learning to argueinvolves learning to take into account what is said and learning to shapearguments so that one's strategies are appropriate for a specific opponent.Children must learn that a strategy that works with a parent - perhapsflinging oneself on the floor and throwing a tantrum - will have very littleeffect on a peer. Alternatively, telling Mommy you are going to hit hermay have the opposite effect of that intended, but may be a highlysuccessful technique when directed toward a sibling or peer. Childrenlearn these rules for arguing through discovering which strategies work andwhich do not, by listening to how their opponents argue, and through theiropponents' requests to provide justification for a request or opposition.

Research on children's conflicts has primarily focused on argumentsbetween children and their peers. The majority of such conflicts center onobjects and issues of possession (Garvey, 1984). Studies focusing onchildren between the ages of 3 and 5 show that children have learned tosupply evidence for conflicting assertions and to supply reasons fornoncompliance. Children also begin to learn techniques, such as com-promises, promises, and alternative proposals, that are more likely to leadto successful termination of an episode.

Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) described the types of moves thatchildren use in their conflicts with peers. They showed that children asyoung as age 3 would attend to the semantic content of their opponent'sspeech in framing their responses. Strategies which took into account whatthe partner said were most likely to lead to successful termination ofthe conflict. The regularity of certain patterns within the dispute furtherindicated that children's moves were influenced by their opponent's priormove. Moves did not follow one another randomly, but instead, werelikely to be followed by a specific response. For example, a move thatoffered a compromise, alternative proposal, or justification was morelikely to end the conflict than a move consisting of insistence, aggravation,or even mitigation.

When arguments between children and their parents are examined,interaction is usually examined from the parent's perspective. The focus isusually parents' strategies or disciplinary techniques and the characteristicsof the parent that lead them to prefer particular strategies (Eisenberg,1986; Grusec and Kuczynski, 1980; Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, and

115

ANN EISENBERG

Johnson, 1980). When the child's behavior is considered, the behaviors ofconcern are generally only compliance vs. non-compliance (Lytton andZwirner, 1975) or the behavior that leads to parental opposition (Zahn-Waxler and Chapman, 1982).

Children's participation in conflicts with parents and peers have almostuniversally been examined independently. On the rare occasion that thechild's participation in parent-child conflicts is considered, different cate-gories of analysis are used so that children's behavior in arguments withparents cannot be compared to their behavior in arguments with peers.The one exception is a study by Vespo, Pedersen, Hockman-Zappulla,and Hay (1984) which compared conflicts with siblings to conflicts withmothers. The context in which the conflicts occurred was, however, highlyrestricted in that all the data were collected during free play and onlyconflicts over toys were examined. The categories of analysis were alsoquite superficial; the only differences mentioned were that conflicts withsiblings were longer than conflicts with mothers and conflicts with motherscontained more verbal turns.

The primary purpose of the present paper is to examine developmentsin children's earliest, verbal arguments and to see how and when theylearn to adjust their strategies for different opponents. Young children'sarguments with parents, peers, and other adults are examined to determinehow the relative status and power of the opponent influences the form andcontent of children's conflicts. If, as Piaget (1959) suggests, equality ofstatus promotes the comparison of divergent viewpoints, conflicts betweenchildren and their peers should be characterized by more cooperation andless self-centered responses than arguments between children and adults.Alternatively, because adults have greater power and control than childopponents, children may need to be more inventive and persuasive withthem.

Arguments with adults other than parents, including relatives andneighbors, will also be examined to determine whether the relationship ofthe adult to the child has an effect on the form and content of the conflict.While other adults may control resources in the way that parents do, theymay engage in different activities with young children and therefore adoptdifferent roles and strategies in the interaction. An aunt, for example, maybe less concerned than a parent with the long-term consequences ofignoring misbehavior or opposition and, therefore, may be more likely tocompromise or comply with child strategies that a parent would ignore oroppose.

METHODS

Subjects. Participants in the study were two, monolingual, Spanish-speakinggirls and their families, friends, and neighbors. Both girls were born in the

116

LEARNING TO ARGUE

United States, but their parents were all immigrants from Central Mexicowho had lived in the United States for less than 6 years when the studybegan. All the adults spoke only Spanish at home. Both girls were first-born children with a younger sister born during the course of the study.The two girls, Nancy and Marisa, were audiotaped every 3 weeks in two,90-minute sessions. Taping lasted for approximately a year, beginningwhen the children began to produce two-word utterances.

The arguments described here come from a sampling of the data. Onlysessions recorded at roughly 2-month intervals were used. Thus, the dataare drawn from 6 sessions from 21 to 31 months for Nancy and 7 sessionsfrom 26 to 37 months for Marisa. Although Marisa was older than Nancy,their level of language development was roughly equivalent.

Recordings were made in the home or outside in the courtyard wherethe women of the neighborhood would often congregate. All the recordingsessions included the mother and in Marisa's case, all included her father.Most sessions also included a peer. Marisa interacted with her cousinLaura, who was 2 years older than she, on virtually a daily basis, whileNancy saw her friend Pablito, who was 22 months older, nearly asfrequently. Nancy and Pablito also occasionally played with another boywho was a year older than Pablito. Other adults were frequently includedin recording sessions as well. Nancy lived with an aunt and two uncles andfrequently spent time with Pablito's mother. Marisa lived next door to heraunt and uncle and her grandmother spent the summer with them.Although the experimenter tried not to participate extensively, she didrespond when the children spoke to her and she occasionally foundherself involved in arguments as well.

Analyses. As in Eisenberg and Garvey (1980), opposition was chosenas the criterion for an argument. The rationale for this approach is thatverbal opposition makes the conflict "public" and stops the interactionuntil some resolution occurs. If a successful resolution occurs, the inter-action can be resumed as if the argument had never occurred. Argumentswere defined as beginning with that initial opposition although all relevant,prior talk was also recorded. All interaction following the initial oppositionwas recorded until obvious agreement was reached, one participant leftthe interaction, or the topic was altered and not resumed for at least aminute.

Comparisons were made between the girls' arguments with 3 classes ofopponents - peer, parent, and other adult. Three sets of analyses weremade. The first focused on the functional role that the child played in theinteraction. Opposition leads to two functional roles - the individual whomakes the initial opposition, i.e., the Opposer, and the individual whoseaction is opposed, i.e., the Opposee. These functional roles are importantin analyzing the arguments because they are reflected in subsequentchoices of strategies. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) argue that to besuccessful, an Opposee need only insist on his position, while the Opposer

117

ANN EISENBERG

may need to resort to more diverse persuasive strategies. A relatedquestion is whether the functional role or the identity of the opponent ismost important in determining the outcome of the argument.

The second set of analyses addressed the focus of the conflict. Conflictswere coded as centering on: (1) possession or use of objects; (2) the child'saction; (3) the opponent's action; and (4) statements of fact.

The final coding categories focused on the strategies that the childrenused. The linguistic strategies used by each participant were coded into thefollowing categories of moves: (1) insistence or repetition - saying "no"without support or reiterating a previously used strategy; (2) verbalsupport - providing justification for a position or providing an alternativefor a rejection; (3) mitigation - increasing indirectness or politeness; (4)threatening; (5) appealing to another individual (tattling); (6) verbal abuse- taunting or mocking with a sing-song intonation or name-calling; (7)temporizing - putting off compliance; and (8) offering to compromise.Temporizing and offering to compromise were extremely infrequentbehaviors. Three types of nonverbal strategies were also identified: (1)ignoring an opponent's move; (2) crying; and (3) physically agressivebehavior.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 244 arguments were identified, 93 for Nancy and 151 forMarisa. Since length of sessions and amount of verbal interaction variedacross sessions, there was no consistent change in the rate of argumentsover time. There were, however, remarkable similarities between the twogirls in the distribution of arguments across opponents. Arguments withparents were most frequent (57.0% for Nancy, 58.3% for Marisa),followed by arguments with peers (24.7% for Nancy, 26.5% for Marisa)and with other adults (18.3% for Nancy, 15.2% for Marisa). This distribu-tion is not surprising as both girls spent more time with their parents thanwith any other individual.

Arguments between parents and peers were differentiated with respectto the focus of the argument. Overall, the majority of arguments focusedon the child's actions (50.4%), but arguments over the child's actions weremore frequent in arguments with parents (61.0% with parents vs. 30.2%with peers). When arguing with peers, children were more likely to argueover objects (38.1% with peers vs. 19.9% with parents). A chi-squarecomparison of the focus of arguments with parents and peers was signifi-cant at the 0.005 level ( 2 = 16.7, df = 3), with the difference inarguments over the child's actions and arguments over objects accountingfor most of the variance. Arguments over information (8.6%) and theother person's actions (13.5%) were less frequent and not significantly

118

LEARNING TO ARGUE

TABLE 1The focus of arguments with different opponents (Parent, Peer, and Other Adult).

W/Parent W/Peer W/Other TotalN % N % N % N %

Child's Actions 86 61.0% 19 30.2% 18 45.0% 123 50.4%Objects 28 19.9% 24 38.1% 14 35.0% 66 27.0%Other's Actions 17 12.1% 12 19.0% 4 10.0% 33 13.5%Information 10 7.1% 8 12.7% 3 7.5% 21 8.6%Unclear 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.5% 1 0.4%

x2 = 16.7, df= 3, p < 0.005.

more likely to occur in either arguments with parents or peers. There wereno significant differences in the focus of the argument between argumentswith other adults and either arguments with parents or peers between thetwo girls.

The functional role that the girls played in the interaction was alsosomewhat dependent on the identity of the opponent. Overall, Marisa wasmore likely to be opposed while Nancy was more likely to initiate theopposition ( 2 = 6.52, df = 1, p < 0.05). Together, however, the girlswere only slightly more likely to be opposed than to oppose. For Nancy,the likelihood of being the Opposer was not significantly different de-pending on the identity of the opponent ( 2 = 5.2, df = 2, ns). For Marisa,however, the identity of the opponent was important in determining herfunctional role. She was much more likely to be the Opposer in argumentswith peers (67.5%) and other adults (52.2%) than in arguments with herparents (19.3%, 2 = 30.1, df = 2, p < 0.001). In other words, most ofMarisa's arguments with her parents were instigated by them, while sheinitiated disagreements with others.

The outcome of the argument also depended on the identity of theopponent. The girls were much more likely to get their way in argumentswith peers and other adults than in arguments with parents. The child'sfunctional role as either Opposer and Opposee was unimportant ininfluencing the outcome of arguments with parents, but was important inarguments with peers.

In arguments with parents, unless the dispute was over a point ofinformation, when someone gave in, that individual was generally thechild. The child's other options included crying, being hit, being physicallyforced to do something, or having an object forcibly removed from herpossession. Parents gave in only rarely, usually when minor issues were atstake. Otherwise, disputes with parents only ended amicably if the childgave in or accepted a distractor that was offered.

119

ANN EISENBERG

TABLE 2The functional role played by each child in arguments with different opponents - Parent,

Peer and Other Adult (OE = Opposee, OR = Opposer)

W/Parent W/Peer W/Other TotalN % N % N % N %

Nancy:OE 29 54.7% 10 43.5% 4 23.5% 43 46.2%OR 24 45.3% 13 56.5% 13 86.5% 50 53.8%

Marisa:OE 71 80.7% 13 32.5% 11 47.8% 95 62.9%OR 17 19.3% 27 67.5% 12 52.2% 56 37.1%

Both:OE 100 70.9% 23 36.5% 15 37.5% 138 56.6%OR 41 29.1% 40 63.5% 25 62.5% 106 43.4%

X2 (Nancy) = 5.2, df = 2, ns.x2 (Marisa) = 30.1, df = 2, p < 0.001.X2 (Both) = 28.02, df= 2, p < 0.001.X2 (Nancy vs. Marisa) = 6.52, df = 1, p < 0.05.

In arguments with peers and other adults, however, the child could winif she were the Opposer and she possessed a disputed object or was askedto perform some action. If the 2-year-old did not win, the interaction wasinevitably interrupted unless the dispute focused on roles in pretend playor the peer was particularly convincing. Unlike the children in theEisenberg and Garvey (1981) study, at age 2 these children were simplynot ready to give in simply to maintain the interaction. Maintaining theinteraction seemed to be more of a concern of their peers who tended tobe slightly older.

Arguments with non-parental adults did not generally disrupt theongoing interaction. Other adults were more likely to give in than parentswere, probably because they were less concerned with the child's behaviorand also because they tended to ask for less important things. With theexception of Marisa's aunt and grandmother (who behaved much like herparents in their interactions with her), other adults often waited for aparent to intervene.

The final set of analyses involved the strategies the girls used inarguments. Throughout the course of the study, the most frequentstrategies included insisting and repeating a position (generally by saying"no") and the three nonverbal strategies - crying, hitting (or grabbing),and ignoring someone. Those strategies were also the first to appear. Asthe girls became older, however, they were more likely to try otherstrategies as well. Nancy also clearly reserved certain strategies for specificopponents.

120

LEARNING TO ARGUE

By the second taping session, both girls had begun to provide occa-sional verbal support for their position. The first supports were whatGarvey and Eisenberg (1986) called "replacives" in which the childproposed an alternative, e.g., No, no es tuyo; es mio, 'No, it's not yours; it'smine,' or No niio; Papa, 'Not boy; Papa.' The next supports to appear andthe ones most commonly used included no puedo, 'I can't', no quiero, 'Idon't want to,' no sirve, 'it doesn't work,' and no, es mio, 'no, it's mine.'Marisa relied almost exclusively on those 4 justifications until she was2;11. By the 6th taping session examined (2;11 for Marisa and 2;7 forNancy), however, both girls not only frequently provided support, but theyalso anticipated the verbal supports that their opponents might use.

1. Marisa (2;11) wants to go outside. Her father, who is holdingher baby sister, Erica, objects.F: No te vayas. 'Don't go out.'C: No, vamos para la banca. 'No, we're going for [= to] the

bench.' [i.e., where she likes to sit]F: No.C: No lloviendo, mira. 'Not raining, look.'F: No, Marisa, porque estd haciendo frio, Marisa. 'No, Marisa,

because it's very cold.'C: No vienepolicia. 'Police aren't coming.'F: iCierra! Estd haciendo mucho frio para- para la Eriquita.

Cidrrale. 'Shut it! It's too cold for Erica. Shut it.'Marisa shuts the door.

Marisa's utterances that it is not raining and the police are not comingmake it clear that she knows what strategies and reasons her opponent willuse. A conversation with her mother two days before the one with herfather illustrates how she has learned which arguments are consideredvalid - and likely to be used against her:

2. Marisa (2;11) opens the door.C: Vamos a la calle. 'Let's go to the street [= outside].'M: No, no, afuera, no. Estd lloviendo. 'No, no, not outside. It's

raining.'C: i Si lloviendo ?'It's raining?'M: Estd cayendo agua. 'Water is falling.'C: [looks outside] No, mira, 'No, look.'M: Estd haciendo mucho frio. Y va a venir la policia otra vez.

'It's very cold. And the police are going to come again.'Marisa stays inside, but looks out and talks about the rain withthe Experimenter.

While verbal supports were expected to be equally distributed acrossopponents because they were equally appropriate for all targets, in fact,the girls were disproportionately likely to use them with peers and other

121

ANN EISENBERG

adults. In all 86, supports were used. While parents accounted for 57.8%of all the arguments, they accounted for only 40.7% of the supports(X2 = 6.98, df = 2, p < 0.05).

The next most frequent child strategy and the next to appear was theverbal threat (2;7 for Marisa and 2;3 for Nancy). The children's threatsmimicked the threats they heard from others - te pego, 'I'll hit you,' mipapa te pega, 'my papa will hit you,' no te voy a querer, 'I won't love you,'no te presto mis juguetes, 'I won't lend you my toys,' el Cucuy te lleva tusangre!, 'the boogeyman will take out your blood,' etc. Parental threatswere extremely common, as can be seen in Example 2. Parents usedthreats in over one quarter of their disputes with their children. Nancy'smother used 18 threats in 15 of their 53 arguments (i.e., in 28.3% or 0.34per argument), while Marisa's parents used 40 threats in 24 of their 88arguments (27.3% or 0.45 per argument).

About the same time that they began to threaten their opponents, thegirls also began using 3 other strategies - taunting (e.g., mocking anotherindividual because they have something the other does not), tattling, andname-calling. Unlike providing support, however, threatening, taunting,and name-calling are not appropriate for children to use in all situations.Children who threaten a parent (unless the threat involves withdrawal oflove) or call him or her "crazy" or "stupid" are considered groseras, 'rude,'and risk a slap in response. Similarly, it is not particularly useful to appealto someone else in an argument with parents because parents are generallythe ultimate authority in the household.

Thus, threats, taunts, and name-calling were most frequent in argumentswith peers. With the exception of telling her mother that she did not orwould not love her anymore, Nancy reserved them exclusively for thatpurpose. The only mistake she made in her choice of strategies was usingthe more aggravated strategies in the presence of her mother. When hermother heard her threatening to hit a friend or calling her little sister awhore, she received a smack.

Marisa seemed less concerned with the situational appropriateness ofcertain strategies. The only strategy she reserved exclusively for a specificopponent was mitigation - essentially, the use of the word por favor,'please' - which she used only with her parents. Rather than responddirectly to the content of her opponent's message, by 2;11 Marisa wouldindiscriminately throw porfavor into the argument if she was arguing withan adult. Calling her use of por favor "mitigation" may be misleadingbecause she used porfavor almost as an emphatic and was just as likely asnot to combine it with a threat:

3. Marisa (2; 11) is not paying attention to the Experimenter.M: Hdz caso, mija. 'Pay attention, honey.'C: No quiero. 'I don't want to.'

122

LEARNING TO ARGUE

M: Porqu?'Why?'C: Mipapda' tiene cinto porfavor. 'My papa has a belt please.'M: Si, pero tu papd te va a pegar con el cinto. 'Yes, but your

papa is going to hit you with the belt.'

While Marisa reserved por favor for arguments with her parents, shedid not yet reserve the more aggressive strategies for her peers. She didnot yet seem to realize - or perhaps, care - that insults and threats wereneither effective nor advisable in arguments with parents. When Marisawould fight with her cousin Laura, both girls frequently taunted the other,calling her names and announcing in a mocking, sing-song intonation whatpossessions were exclusively hers. Marisa would frequently use the samestrategy in disputes with her mother, announcing, for example, Yo tengoplay-doh, ah-ha!, 'I have play-doh [and you don't], ah-ha!' When taunted,her mother would roll her eyes and usually exclaim in disgust. Whenthreatened or called "stupid," however, her mother would hit or threatento hit her.

In summary, while there were clear differences in arguments betweenparents and peers, particularly in terms of the focus and outcome of theargument and the functional role the child played, the data suggest thatthese two girls were only beginning to adjust their speech to make itappropriate for a particular listener. In general, they resorted to onestrategy for all listeners - insist, repeat, cry, and scream. Each girl did,however, have a small number of less frequently used strategies that theyreserved for a particular category of opponents. For example, Nancy onlythreatened and insulted peers while Marisa only used "please" andtemporizing with her parents.

Whether their strategies were more complex with one opponent oranother is difficult to say, however. While the girls were more likely to useverbal support - one of Garvey and Eisenberg's (1980) "adaptive"strategies - with their peers, they also used more less adaptive, moreaggressive strategies (e.g., threats and insults) with their peers. With theexception of Marisa's one attempt to compromise, all of the girls moveswere self-centered. The girls had, in fact, not yet reached the stage ofrational argumentation.

By the end of taping, these two girls had also not yet reached'the levelof complexity in their arguments that was demonstrated by the children inthe Eisenberg and Garvey (1980) study. One possible explanation for thisdifference, of course, was the age of the children. At the end of taping,Nancy and Marisa were only as old as the very youngest children in theEisenberg and Garvey study.

Yet the context in which the arguments were recorded also seems atleast partially responsible for this difference. The children in the Eisenbergand Garvey study were recorded while playing alone in a playroom. In

123

ANN EISENBERG

their everyday lives, however, preschoolers only rarely play together in asituation where there is no adult to appeal to. Thus, the playroom mayhave called on children's resources to be inventive in their argumentation.The reliance on threatening, taunting, and insulting - which Eisenbergand Garvey would have considered less "adaptive" strategies - may havealso stemmed from social class or ethnic differences in the model pre-sented to them by the adults with whom they interacted. Few studiesthat have described middle-class parents' strategies for responding tononcompliance have reported such a large percentage of authoritarianstrategies (e.g., Sigel et al., 1980).

Finally, the data suggest that there may also be individual differencesbetween children in the acquisition of socially appropriate speech. Nancymade more distinctions between opponents in her arguments, whileMarisa used strategies indiscriminately. Marisa also used more differentstrategies than Nancy did. Whether this difference relates to linguisticability or personality is not readily apparent. The appearance at such ayoung age of what may be stylistic differences suggests, however, that aproductive area for research may be the outcomes and origins of styles ofargumentation that differ in consideration of the opponent's relative statusand desires, as well as inventiveness.

REFERENCES

Dawe, H. C.: 1934,'Quarrels of Preschool Children', Child Development 5, 139-157.Eisenberg, A. R.: 1986, 'A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Mothers' Beliefs and Influence

Techniques', presented at the Meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research inHuman Development, San Antonio.

Eisenberg, A. R. and Garvey, C.: 1981, 'Children's Use of Verbal Strategies in ResolvingConflicts', Discourse Processes 4, 149-170.

Garvey, C.: 1984, Children's Talk, Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma.Garvey, C. and Eisenberg, A. R.: 1986, 'Logical Patterns in Child-Mother Conversation,'

Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Toronto.

Green, E. H.: 1933, 'Friendships and Quarrels Among Preschool Children', Child Devel-opment 4, 237-252.

Grotevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R.: 1983, 'Individuality and Connectedness in the Familyas a Context for Adolescent Identity Formation and Role-Taking Skill', in H. D.Grotevant and C. R. Cooper (eds.), New Directions for Child Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Grotevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R.: 1985, 'Patterns of Interaction in Family Relationshipsand the Development of Identity Exploration in Adolescence', Child Development 56,415-428.

Grusec, J. E. and Kuczynski, L.: 1980, 'Direction of Effect in Socialization: A Comparisonof the Parent vs. the Child's Behavior as Determinants of Disciplinary Techniques',Developmental Psychology 16, 1-9.

Hess, R. D. and McDevitt, T. M.: 1975, 'Some Cognitive Consequences of MaternalIntervention Techniques: A Longitudinal Study', Child Development 55, 2017-2030.

124

LEARNING TO ARGUE

Hoffman, M. L.: 1969, 'Moral Internalization, Parental Power, and the Nature of theParent-Child Interaction', Developmental Psychology 5, 45-57.

Jersild, A. T and Markey, F. V.: 1947, 'Conflicts Between Preschool Children', ChildDevelopment Monographs 21, 1-181.

Lytton, H. and Zwirner, W.: 1975, 'Compliance and its Controlling Stimuli Observed in aNatural Setting,' Developmental Psychology 11, 769-779.

Parke, R. D. and Collmer, C. W.: 1975, 'Child Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Analysis', inE. M. Hetherington (ed.), Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 5, University ofChicago, Chicago.

Patterson, G. R.: 1980, 'Mothers: The Unacknowledged Victims', Monographs of theSociety for Research in Child Development 45, whole No. 186.

Perry, D. G. and Perry, L. C.: 1983, 'Social Learning, Causal Attribution, and MoralInternalization', in J. Bisanz, G. L. Bisanz, and R. Kail (eds.), Learning in Children:Progress in Cognitive Developmental Research, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Piaget, J.: 1959, The Language and Thought of the Child, Routledge and Kegan Paul,London. (First ed., 1923).

Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., and Johnson, J. E.: 1980, Parental Distancing,Beliefs, and Children's Representational Competence within the Family Context, Educa-tional Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.

Vespo, J. E., Pedersen, J., Hockman-Zappulla, L., and Hay, D. F.: 1984, 'Young Children'sConflicts with their Mothers and Siblings', presented at the Eighth Biennial Meeting ofthe Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Athens, Ga.

Zahn-Waxler, C. and Chapman, M.: 1982, 'Immediate Antecedents of Caretakers' Methodsof Discipline', Child Psychiatry and Human Development 12, 179-192.

125