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

com/

Approaches to conflict and conflict resolution in toddler relationships

Nicole Ashby and Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett Journal of Early Childhood Research 2012 10: 145 originally published online 17 April 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1476718X11430070 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Early Childhood Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ecr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ecr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/10/2/145.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 18, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 17, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com by Minodora Mancas on October 5, 2013

430070

EUR

Article

Approaches to conflict and conflict resolution in toddler relationships

Nicole Ashby

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

Macquarie University, Australia

Cathrine Neilsen-Hewett
Macquarie University, Australia

Abstract
The 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 were composed 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: cathrine.neilsen@mq.edu.au

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 interaction 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 friendship, 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

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 resolution 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 participating 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 capacity, 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 disagreements (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).

148

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

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 predominance 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 following 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 developed 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 conflicts 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 preschool-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 nonfriend dyads, and friend and acquaintance dyads, further highlights the need for research with toddlers 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

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

149

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 acquaintance 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 socioeconomic backgrounds. All children had developed verbal communication skills to varying degrees. Speech patterns ranged from two to five word utterances. Additionally, all children were considered 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 participants, 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 positive 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 A was a girl friendship pair. Jane1 was two years and seven months, and had been attending the 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 B was 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 C included 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 and nine months and had been attending the centre for one year and two months. They were at the centre together three days per week.

150

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

Pair D included 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 observational 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 cognizant 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 observational 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 childrens ongoing 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

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

Table 1. Coding scheme used to analyse conflict events Issue

151

Conflict duration Conflict event Resolution strategy

Conflict outcome

Affective intensity Aggression

Prior interaction

Post-conflict interaction

A description of the origins of the conflict, highlighting whether the event was primarily a result of a possession of an object (object oriented), or socially motivated, and thus an attempt at behavioural control. Conflicts were timed and the duration of each event recorded. The mean conflict duration was established for each pair and for friends and acquaintances. This was coded as a percentage. Coders recorded each exchange during the conflict event. The action of each child was transcribed and then coded as verbal, physical or both verbal and physical. 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 physical behaviour to insist on the original goal), disengagement (turning away or distraction), bargaining and negotiation (modification of position or suggest alternative) or intervention by the teacher (Hartup et al., 1988). This referred to the degree of equity reached through conflict resolution. The categories which were coded included: winners/losers (characterized by a non-equitable solution in which a clear distinction between the child who obtains the desired outcome and the child who does not), partial equity (one child receives the desired outcome whilst the other also obtains something desirable, but not equal to the first child), compromise (this was considered to be an equitable solution). Conflict events at their peak were coded as either high intensity or low intensity. The use of only two categories is a response to difficulties faced by Hartup et al. (1988). The absence or presence of aggression was coded. Aggressive behaviours included: verbal aggression, physical aggression, threat gestures (unsuccessful aggressive attempts), destructive behaviour and verbal threats. Coders recorded the type of interaction children were engaged in prior to each conflict, according to one of three categories: solitary play, parallel play or cooperative play. Precedent events were considered to be those occurring within the 30 seconds prior to conflict. Postdata collection and coding the number of categories for play type was reduced to two: parallel and cooperative play. Parallel play was defined as the pursuit of similar activities without a common or integrated goal. Cooperative play was considered to be interactions and engagement in the pursuit of a common goal. The design of the study effectively ensured, through materials provided, that children were engaged in at least parallel play. The type of interaction children engaged in immediately following conflict resolution, up to 30 seconds post conflict, was recorded. Each was classified according to the same categories used for precedent events: parallel play or cooperative play.

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.

152

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

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 surrounding conflict events. Table 1 outlines the coding scheme used by the researchers, based on a data-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 resisting 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 was used, with 25 percent of observational sessions examined and assessed by a second coder.2 The 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 session involved 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%), followed 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 behavioural 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 to both conflict events, parallel play was evident. This was also the case for post conflict interactions. A description and analysis of each conflict is outlined in Table 3.

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

Table 2. Conflict and conflict resolution results for each pair Pair A Girl friend dyad Total conflict Total number of conflicts % of time spent in conflict Conflict issue Object oriented Behavioural control Conflict event Verbal Physical Both verbal and physical Affective intensity High intensity Low intensity Aggression present Conflict outcome Win/lose Partial equity Resolution strategy Yielding Standing firm Bargaining/negotiation 2 3.9% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% Pair B friend dyad Pair C Girl acquaintance dyad 8 13% 62.5% 37.5% 12.5% 25% 62.5% 37.5% 62.5% 37.5% 87.5% 12.5% 25% 62.5% 12.5%

153

Pair D Boy acquaintance dyad 4 2.75% 100% 0% 25% 25% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 75% 25% 0%

0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Analysis for Pair B: Boy friend dyad

No conflicts were observed between this pair in any of the four sessions (see Table 2). They accommodated 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 for the 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 observations 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,

154

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

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 cooperative 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 Pair A: Jane & Lily Conflict 1 Jane places some playdough on a plate in the cupboard. Lily opens the cupboard door and tries to place something in it. Jane closes the cupboard door saying no. Lily tries to reopen the door. Jane pushes Lily out of the way and stands with her back to the cupboard door repeating no. Lily moves back to the table. Conflict 2 Lily sits on a chair. Jane says its my chair whilst leaning on Lily. Jane says its my char, my chair and tries to climb onto the back of the chair. Lily remains seated. Jane says Its my chair, move Lily. She reaches over and tries to take a bowl of playdough from Lily. Lily says no, my playdough and holds onto the bowl. Jane grabs the bowl. Lily remains in the chair and Jane moves to the table. Pair C: Maya & Kelli Conflict 1 Maya picks up a bowl from in front of Kelli. (Session 1) Kelli takes the bowl from Maya. Analysis of conflict Both physical and verbal means were used, with aggression evident, whilst intensity was low. Began as a conflict over one object but soon escalated to include a second object. Characterized by both verbal and physical means. Aggression was present and affective intensity was high. Solely physical means are used during this interaction. Aggression is absent and affective intensity is low. Both physical and verbal means were used. Intensity was high with aggression evident. Conflict resolution Standing firm was employed by Jane, with a win/lose outcome achieved.

Yielding displayed by both Jane and Lily, resulting in each gaining control over one of the conflict items, a chair and a bowl filled with playdough.

Maya yields control of the bowl to Kelli with a win/lose outcome achieved. Standing firm was employed by Kelli with a win/lose outcome achieved.

Conflict 2 (Session 2)

Maya sits in a chair. Kelli says thats Mummys chair whilst pushing Maya to the next chair. She repeats thats Mummys chair. Maya stands and touches the back of the same chair. Kelli moves Mayas hand and repeats thats Mummys chair. Maya touches the back of the chair again. Kelli removes Mayas hand saying hey.

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

Table 3.(Continued) Vignette Conflict 3 (Session 3) Maya picks up a piece of bread from in front of Kelli. Kelli snatches the bread saying no. Maya says I want the bread. Kelli replies I got it. Kelli picks up a piece of toast from in front of Maya. Maya says no, thats mine. Kelli tries to give Maya a slice of pizza. Maya says no thats mine gesturing towards the toast. Kelli again offers Maya the slice of pizza, which she accepts. Analysis of conflict Both verbal and physical means are used during this event. Intensity is high and aggression is evident. Verbal means were used during this conflict event. Intensity was low and aggression absent. Both verbal and physical means are used. Aggression is absent and intensity low. Both verbal and physical means are used during this event. Intensity is low and aggression is absent.

155

Conflict resolution Kelli utilizes standing firm with a win/lose outcome achieved. Bargaining and negotiation employed by Kelli with a partial equity outcome.

Conflict 4 (Session 4)

Pair D: Jamie & Luke Conflict 1 Luke picks up a cup from the table. Jamie (Session 2) takes the cup saying mine. Luke picks up a bowl. Conflict 2 (Session 3) Jamie takes a bowl from Luke and places it in a cupboard. Closing the door Jamie stands with his back against the cupboard. Luke says no, no Jamie stop holding his hand up. Jami maintains his position. Luke moves to open another cupboard before returning to the first. He says no to Jamie and shakes his hand. Jamie turns around and takes the bowl from the cupboard moving away from Luke.

Luke yields possession of the cup to Jamie with a win/lose outcome achieved. Jamie utilizes standing firm with a win/lose outcome achieved.

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, limited number of resources provided, and interactions within a specific dyad, results in increased opportunity for conflict. Limited verbal skills, typical of this age group, may also be related to the low

156

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

Table 4. Conflict and conflict resolution according to friendship status and gender Friends Total conflict Total number of conflicts % of total conflict events % of time spent in conflict Conflict issue Object oriented Behavioural control Conflict event Verbal Physical Both verbal and physical Affective intensity High intensity Low intensity Aggression present Conflict outcome Win/lose Partial equity Resolution strategy Yielding Standing firm Bargaining/negotiation 2 14.3% 2% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% Acquaintances 12 87.5% 8% 75% 25% 8% 25% 67% 25% 75% 25% 92% 8% 42% 50% 8% Boys 4 29% 1.4% 100% 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 75% 25% 0% Girls 10 71% 8.7% 60% 40% 10% 20% 70% 40% 60% 50% 80% 20% 30% 60% 10%

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 conflict and 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 objectoriented 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 with acquaintance 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

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

157

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 acquaintances (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 resolution, 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 conflict 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

158

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

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 resolution 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 percent 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 outcomes, 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 familiarity within dyads, and particular situations, on the nature of conflict events and their subsequent resolutions. The findings further highlight the complex nature of conflict events and attest to the need for

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

159

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 presence 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; DopplerBourassa 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, intensity 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 Psychology 21(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 Development 62(6): 15131524.

160

Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(2)

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 Development 12(4): 523544. Cocks AJ (2006) The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining childrens agreement to research participation. Childhood 13(2): 247266. Degotardi S (2008) Looking out and looking in: Reflecting on conducting observational research in a childcare 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 Processes 4: 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 Development 68(3): 496506. Gleason TR and Hohmann LM (2006) Concepts of real and imaginary friendships in early childhood. Social Development 15(1): 128144. Gottman JM (1983) How children become friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 48(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 Development 59(5): 15901600. Hay DF (1984) Social conflict in early childhood. Annals of Child Development 1: 144. Hay DF and Ross HS (1982) The social nature of early conflict. Child Development 53(1): 105113. Hazen N and Brownell C (1999) Peer relationships in early childhood: Current trends and future directions. Early Education and Development 10(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 Development 56(1): 234245. Howes C (1983) Patterns of friendship. Child Development 54(4): 10411053. Howes C (1988) Peer interactions of young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 53: 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 Psychology 169(2): 133148. Laursen B, Finkelstein BD and Betts NT (2001) A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution. Developmental Review 21(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 Development 56(4): 10091017. Newcomb AF, Bukowski WM and Pattee L (1993) Childrens peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin 113(1): 99128.

Ashby and Neilsen-Hewett

161

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 Development 58: 93111. Sackin S and Thelen E (1984) An ethological study of peaceful associative outcomes to conflict in preschool children. Child Development 55(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 Development 12(2): 249268. Shantz DW (1986) Conflict, aggression and peer status: An observational study. Child Development 57(5): 13221332. Shantz CU (1987) Conflicts between children. Child Development 58(2): 283305. Shantz CU and Hobart CJ (1989) Social conflict and development: Peers and siblings. In: Berndt TJ and Ladd GW (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 Development 29: 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 Care 68(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 Relationships 11(3): 383400. Wittmer DS (2008) Focusing on Peers: The Importance of Relationships in the Early Years. Washington, DC: Zero to Three.