D U R I N G THE F IRST TWO YEARS OF LIFE b y R o b e r t A l l e n Lamp a r d B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Victoria, 1980 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Victoria, 1987 A D i s s e r t a t i o n S u b m i t t e d in Partial F u l f i l l m e n t of the R e q u i r e m e n t s for the D e g r e e of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y in the D e p a r t m e n t of P s y c h o l o g y
We accept this thesis as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d
...
Dr. M .A. Hunter, S u p e r v i s o r (Department of Psychology)
Dr. P. Duncan, D e p a r t m e n t a l M e m b e r (Department of Psychology)
Dr. N. Galambos, D e p a r t m e n t a l M e m b e r (Department of Psychology)
Dr*. B . T i m m ojrfsj, O u t s i d e M e m b e r (Department of Education)
'
!
---Dr. C. (Johnston, E x t ernal E x a m i n e r (Department of Psychology, UBC)
® R O B E R T A L L E N LAMPARD, 1994
U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a
All rights reserved. D i s s e r t a t i o n m a y not b e r e p r o d u c e d in w h o l e o r in part, b y p h o t o c o p y i n g or o t h e r means,
E x a m i n e r s :
Dr. M.A. Hunter, S u p e r v i s o r (Department of Psychology)
^ f * 1 — ~
Dr. P. Duncan, D e p a r t m e n t a l M e m b e r (Department of Psychology)
v
Dr. N. Galarabos, D e p a r t m e n t a l M e m b e r (Department of Psychology)
Dr. B. Timmons,/tjutside M e m b e r (Department of Education)
A C K N O W L E G E M E N T S
First, I w i s h to e x t e n d m y thanks to the m o t h e r s a n d c h i l d r e n whose uns e l f i s h p a r t i c i p a t i o n he l p e d m ake this r e s earch possible. Th a n k s also to the staff at the V i c t o r i a General Hospital, who h e l p e d in the search for v o l u n t e e r s to take part in the study.
I w o u l d a l s o like to t hank m y committee members, P a m Duncan, N ancy Galambos, and B e v e r l y Timmons. Their contr i b u t i o n s to this proj e c t were numerous a n d h e l p e d to g r e a t l y improve the q u a l i t y of the final product. In a d d i t i o n to t h e i r a c a d e m i c contributions, t h e y a lso p r o v i d e d
e xceptional support, e n c o u r a g e m e n t and understanding. In this respect, I want to o f f e r a p a r t i c u l a r thanks to Pam Duncan, who h e l p e d not onl y with this project, but who has b e e n there throughout m y u n d e r g r a d u a t e and g r a d u a t e c a r e e r as a source of i nspiration an d support.
I a l s o ow e a debt of thanks to a great m a n y friends and fellow students. T h a n k - y o u to H e a t h e r Davidson, Chuck L e m e r y an d J e n nifer Mullett. You r w o r d s of warmth, wis d o m a n d hum o u r h e l p e d me to survive
and b e n e f i t f r o m this experience., I w o u l d also like to thank S h e l l y O'Connor, w hose c o n t r i b u t i o n s to m y life and w e l l - b e i n g e x t e n d far b e y o n d he r supp o r t throughout this dissertation. Zha n Du was a warm source of e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d intellectual stimulation, a n d his hel p is g r e a t l y a p p r eciated. Finally, I a m indebted to a n u m b e r of co-workers who h e l p e d me w i t h their support. Thanks to Barry, Candace, Dorothy, Elly, Frankie, Jacquie, Joy, Kathryn, Marianne, M i c h a e l an d Steve.
A v e r y s p e c i a l debt of g r a t i t u d e is o wed to m y supervisor, Mik e Hunter. W a y b a c k d u r i n g m y first u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t a t i s t i c s class he made the m i s t a k e of s u g g e s t i n g that I had sho u l d c o n t i n u e o n in psychology. Little d i d he k n o w t hen that his simple words of e n c o u r a g e m e n t w ould prompt m e to w o r k w ith h i m for m ore than a decade. T h e d u r a t i o n of this p a r t n e r s h i p is t e s t i m o n y to m y be l i e f that there is no on e who could p o s s i b l y rival M i k e ' s m a n y e x c ellent an d v a r i e d qualities. T h a n k - y o u for y o u r friendship, support, patience, and encouragement.
Finally, I w ould like to e x t e n d m y love and a p p r e c i a t i o n to my mother. B e t t y Lampard, and m y brothers, G reg an d R a e . T h e faith that you h a d in me h e l p e d me make it through m a n y d i f f i c u l t sp r.s, and I tha n k - y o u for y o u r p a t i e n c e and for y o u r u n w a v e r i n g b e l i e f in me.
D EDIC A T I O N
To m y e x c e p t i o n a l l y loving, patient and s u p p o r t i v e wife, Sherry, without w h o m I w o u l d n ever have c o mpleted this project, and also my w o nderful d a u g h t e r Jessica, whose b i r t h and life has b r o u g h t me p r o f o u n d h a p p i n e s s .
T A B L E OF CONTENTS TITLE P A G E / C E R T I F I C A T E OF E X A M I N A T I O N ... i A B S T R A C T ... i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ... v D E D I C A T I O N ... vii TABLE O F C O N T E N T S ... viii LIST OF T A B L E S ... ix C H A P T E R ONE: O V E R V I E W ... 1 C H A P T E R TWO: R E S E A R C H P E R S P E C T I V E S ON P A R E N T-CHILD C O N F L I C T ... 5
CHAP T E R THREE: M A J O R R E S E A R C H A N D EMPIRICAL F I N D I N G S ... 17
C H A P T E R FOUR: M E T H O D ... 37 CHAP T E R FIVE: R E S U L T S ... 48 C H A P T E R SIX: D I S C U S S I O N ...98 R E F E R E N C E S ... 116 A P P E N D I X A ... 123 A P P E N D I X B ... 124 A P P E N D I X C ... 126 A P P E N D I X D ... 127 A P P E N D I X E 129
Table l: D e f i n i t i o n s of M a t e r n a l Verbal Controls ... 4 3
Table 2: D e f i n i t i o n s of M a t e r n a l Physical Controls ... 44
Table 3: D e f i n i t i o n s of C h i l d Responses ...45
Table 4: D e f i n i t i o n s of Control Episode Issue T ypes ... 46
Table 5: D e f i n i t i o n s of Conflict Resolu t i o n s ... 47
Table 6: R e l i a b i l i t y of C o d i n g Categories ... 50
Table 7: C o n t r o l and Conflict Episode Var i a b l e s ... 54
Table 8: C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n s ... 55
Table 9: E p i s o d i c Variables: Cross-Age C o r r e l a t i o n s ...60
Table 10: M a t e r n a l Verbal Controls ... 64
Table 11: C r o s s - A g e C o r r e lations for M a t e r n a l V e r b a l C o n t r o l s ... 66
Table 12: M a t e r n a l Physical Controls ... 67
Table 13: C r o s s - A g e Corr e l a t i o n s for M a t ernal Physical C o n t r o l s .... 69
Table 14: C h i l d Responses to M a t e r n a l Controls ... 71
Table 15: C h i l d Responses to M a t e r n a l Controls: C r o s s - A g e C o r r e l a t i o n s ... 73
Table 16: C o r r e l a t i o n of M a t e r n a l Beh a v i o r s and C h i l d Res p o n s e s at 10 Mo n t h s ...76
Table 17: C o r r e l a t i o n of M a t e r n a l Beh a v i o r s and C h i l d R e s ponses at 16 M o n t h s ...77
Table 18: C o r r e l a t i o n of M a t e r n a l Beh a v i o r s a n d C h i l d Re s p o n s e s at 24 M o n t h s ...78
Table 19: C o r r e l a t i o n s of M a t e r n a l B e haviors at 10 M o n t h s and C h i l d B e haviors at 16 M o n t h s ... 81
Table 20: C o r r e l a t i o n s of M a t e r n a l Beh a v i o r s at 10 M o n t h s and C h i l d Behaviors at 24 M o n t h s ... 82
Table 21: P r o p o r t i o n of Control Episodes of Di f f e r e n t Issue Types at 10, 16, and 24 M o n t h s ...84
Table 22: P r o p o r t i o n of Control Episodes of Each Issue Type: C r o s s - A g e Cor r e l a t i o n s ... 86
Table 23: P r o p o r t i o n of Control Episodes In v o l v i n g C o n flict A n a l y z e d b y Age a n d Issue T ype ...87
T able 24: C o m p l i a n c e Ratio b y Age a n d Issue Type ... 89
Table 25: N u m b e r of O p p o s i t i o n a l Be h a v i o r s per I ssue Typ e Episode ... 91
Table 26: P r o p o r t i o n of Passiv e / P o s i t i v e O p p o s i t i o n as a
F u n c t i o n of Issue Type ... 93 Table 27: C o r r e l a t i o n of R e l a t i v e F r e quency of Issue Types with
C h i l d B e h avior at 10, 16, and 24 M o n t h s ... ...95 Table 28: C o r r e l a t i o n of R e l a t i v e Fre q u e n c y of Issue T ypes at
CHAP T E R ONE
OV E R V I E W
T h e first two y e a r s of a child's life r e present a p e r i o d of rapid
and c ontinuous d e v e l o p m e n t b o t h in the individual c h i l d and in
c a r e g i v e r - c h i l d r e l ationships. As wit h all intimate relationships, the
c a r e g i v e r - c h i l d b o n d involves a dia l e c t i c b e t w e e n " g r owing together" and
"growing apart"; b e t w e e n h e a l t h y i n t e r d e pendence and h e a l t h y autonomy.
The e s t a blishment of " h e a l t h y interdependence" appears to be the first
major d e v e l o p m e n t a l task for c a r e g i v e r - c h i l d relationships, and the
importance of this p e r i o d is i l l u s t r a t e d in the v o l u m i n o u s r e s e a r c h on
attac h m e n t (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978; Sroufe &
Waters, 1977). The first two y e a r s of life also b r i n g the first signs
of h e a l t h y independence, as the c h i l d emerges f r o m an initial state of
total d e p e n d e n c y to one of autonomy.
T h e s e first steps towards independence b r i n g w i t h t hem an
i n c r e a s e d p o t e n t i a l for p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict. T h e r e s a an d Frank Caplan
(1983) d e s c r i b e this in their b ook for parents:
W h e n T o d d l e r - o n e s b e g i n to get ar o u n d o n their own, t hey deve l o p the a b i l i t y to assert themselves. Just w h e n t h e i r c a r e g i v e r s are g e t t i n g u s e d to a t t e n d i n g to the needs of d e p e n d e n t infants, the y o u n g s t e r s s u d d e n l y shift gears from the s tage of b a b y h o o d to that of e a r l y childhood. The T o d d l e r - t w o p e r i o d is i d e n t i f i e d b y E r i k s o n as the p e r i o d of a u t o n o m y : "... b e c o m i n g a ware of
o n e s e l f as a p e r s o n and w a n t i n g to do things b y oneself" .... Parents n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d that the T o d d l e r - t w o ' s b e h a v i o r is not m a l i c i o u s .... A b o v e all, prep a r e for "mock battles", as y o u r c h i l d tries out his g r o w i n g c a p a c i t y to as s e r t himself. (p. 25)
A l t h o u g h the t e r m "mock b a t tles" m a y not do justice to the v e r y real
conflicts in ,;hich p a r e n t s o f t e n find thems e l v e s in w i t h their y o u n g
r e c a l i b r a t i o n s in the p a r e n t - c h i l d relationship. C o n f l i c t s are a
frequent and important part of this process of mu t u a l accommodation. In
c ontrast to the more "voluntary" na t u r e of m a n y o ther r e l a t i o n s h i p s
where it is e a s i e r to "walk away" f rom a c o n f l i c t e d a s s o c i a t i o n -- the
p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p involves an o b l i g a t o r y and l o n g - t e r m b o n d of
intimacy. This type of intimate interdepe dency, w i t h its continual
a g e - r e l a t e d shifts in the n a t u r e of the p a r e n t - c h i l d relationship,
increases the p o t e n t i a l for conflict. F a c i l i t a t i n g b o t h r e l a t i o n a l and
individual g r o w t h r e q uires d e v e l o p i n g means of a l l o w i n g for h e a l t h y
conflict while still c o n s t r a i n i n g its mor e d e s t r u c t i v e potential.
T hi s r e s e a r c h is a long i t u d i n a l e x p l o r a t i o n of m o t h e r - c h i l d
conflict d u r i n g the first two y e a r s of life, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on
the e a r l y d e v e l o p m e n t of child r e n ' s opp o s i t i o n a l behaviors. Central to
this r e s e a r c h is the b e l i e f that conflict is a n e c e s s a r y an d natural
part of the p r o c e s s w h e r e b y in d i v i d u a l s define and r e d e f i n e their
relationships. A l t h o u g h c o n f l i c t is o f t e n e q u a t e d w i t h its extreme
m a nifestations, it a lso takes p l a c e e ach time indivi d u a l s v e r b a l l y
d i s a g r e e about w h i c h t e a m will w i n a game; eac h time a child does not
com p l y w i t h a p a r e n t ' s r e p e a t e d request; eac h time a w i f e an d h u s b a n d
p l a y f u l l y a rgue about w h o s e is the b e t t e r w a y to do the dishes. T h r o u g h
such s e e m i n g l y m i n o r o p p o s i t i o n a l interchanges indivi d u a l s not o n l y
express aspe c t s of themselves, t h e y de f i n e t h emselves in r e l a t i o n to
others. In l o n g - t e r m a n d i n t i m a t e relationships, this p r o c e s s can have
signif i c a n t e f f e c t s o n its members. As p r e v i o u s l y noted, this is
e s p e c i a l l y true of the e a r l y c a r e g i v e r - c h i l d relationship, b o t h beca u s e
impact the r e l a t i o n s h i p has in this formative p e r i o d of c h i l d
d e v e l o p m e n t .
In the past, a nu m b e r of r e s earch p e r s p e c t i v e s have c o n t r i b u t e d
to our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict. A l t h o u g h c o n flict has
seldom b e e n the explicit focus of these discussions, t h e y have p r o v i d e d
at least indirect t h e o r y and dat a that can inform future research. In
chapter two, p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h perspectives are r e v i e w e d in terms of
their implicit models of p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict a n d c h i l d opposition. It
is p r o p o s e d that most d e v e l o p m e n t a l literature o n p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict
has b e e n g u i d e d b y a "socialization" p e r s p e c t i v e that has impli c i t l y
defined c o n f l i c t as maladaptive. In contrast, r e s e a r c h e r s study i n g
marital and f a m i l y conflict fro m a "pragmatic/systems" p e r s p e c t i v e have
relied o n a m o r e dyna m i c model o f conflict that r e c o g n i z e s b o t h its
p o s itive an d n e g a t i v e potential.
In c h a p t e r three, s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h findings o n p a r e n t - c h i l d
conflict will b e reviewed. The focus g e n e r a l l y will be o n conflict
during the p r e s c h o o l years, w i t h an emphasis o n c o n f l i c t episodes. That
is, p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict will be d i s c u s s e d in terms of issues, length,
resolutions, a n d overall frequency. A final s e c t i o n will disc u s s what
is k n o w n about par e n t and c h i l d b e h a v i o r d u r i n g c o n t r o l a n d conflict
e n c o u n t e r s .
T h e m e t h o d u s e d in the pres e n t resea r c h will b e r e v i e w e d in
chapter four. Briefly, the s t u d y u t i l i z e d a s e m i - n a t u r a l i s t i c setting
to ga t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n a l dat a on the control a n d c o n f l i c t e n c o u n t e r s of
mothers a n d t h e i r c h i l d r e n w h e n the c h i l d r e n w e r e a g e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10,
C h a p t e r five p r e sents the results of the research. Th e results
are d i s c u s s e d in five m a i n sections: (1) data r e l a t e d to the e p i sodic
features of c o n flict (i.e., frequency, length, issues, r e s o lutions); (2)
d e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e and s t a b i l i t y in mater n a l beha v i o r s ; (3)
d e v e l o p m e n t a l ch a n g e and s t a b i l i t y in child beha v i o r s ; (4) e x a m i n a t i o n
of the a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n m o t h e r an d child behavior; and, (5) results
rela t e d to the impact that v a r i o u s issues that i n i t i a t e d c o n f l i c t s had
on the q u a n t i t y an d q u a l i t y of those conflicts.
In c h a p t e r six, the current r e s e a r c h is d i s c u s s e d in r e l a t i o n to
the l i t e r a t u r e o n c h ildren's social d e v e l o p m e n t d u r i n g the first two
years. Ideas fo r future r e s e a r c h and t h e o r etical a d v a n c e s are
discussed, a n d the clinical implications of the curr e n t s t u d y are
prejented. T h e c h a p t e r con c l u d e s w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of the limitations
CHAP T E R TW O
R E S E A R C H PER S P E C T I V E S ON P A R E N T - C H I L D C O N F L I C T
P a r e n t - r e p o r t d ata indicate that the e a r l y c h i l d - r e a r i n g years
involve c o n s i d e r a b l e conflict (e.g., Heinstein, 1969; F'eusser, 1984).
Despite the impact that this conflict can h ave o n p a r e n t - c h i I d
interactions, there is little r e s e a r c h a d d r e s s i n g its b a s i c f orm and
functions. Sh a n t z (1987) notes that this is true of r e s e a r c h on peer
c onflict as well, and c o n t e n d s that the lack of r e s e a r c h arises from two
factors: (a) c o n f l i c t has t y p i c a l l y b e e n e q u a t e d w i t h its m o r e extreme
ma n i f e s t a t i o n s in e p i sodes i n v o l v i n g aggression, an d (b) p s y c h o l o g i s t s
have e m p h a s i z e d the i ndividual as the "unit" of analysis. This emphasis
on the indiv i d u a l has l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h o n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l na t u r e of
i n t e rpersonal conflict. A l s o i n f l u e n c i n g the r e s e a r c h o n p a r e n t - c h i l d
conflict is the e m p hasis o n socialization, w h i c h has d o m i n a t e d
d e v e l o p m e n t a l literature. Th e s o c i a l i z a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e has i mplicitly
d e f i n e d c o n flict as a m a l a d a p t i v e p henomenon. T h e t e r m "socialization"
suggests b o t h the p a r e n t - t o - c h i l d i n f luence m o d e l that has g u i d e d most
r e s e a r c h as well as the "goal" of p a r e n t a l influence: n a m e l y the
d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e s o c i a l i z e d c h i l d (Bell, 1968). T his goal is
r e f l e c t e d in the r e s e a r c h on c o m p l i a n c e (e.g., Lytton, 1980), o b edience
(e.g., Minton, K a g a n and Levine, 1971), a n d s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n (Kopp,
1982). A l t h o u g h not d i s c o u n t i n g that e a r l y p a r e n t - c h i l d interactions do
involve c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r e n t - t o - c h i l d influence, an d that c o m p l i a n c e is
r e s u l t e d in little r e s e a r c h or th e o r y o n the a d a p t i v e role of social
conflict in p a r e n t - c h i l d relations.
T h e r e exists o n l y a small b o d y of r e s e a r c h that exami n e s p a r e n t -
c hild c o n f l i c t p e r s e . That is, there is a r e l a t i v e l y small b o d y of
r e s e a r c h that examines actual p a r e n t - c h i l d c o n f l i c t s fro m their onset to
their resolution. However, there is c o n s i d e r a b l e l i t e r a t u r e that deals
w ith c o n f l i c t - r e l a t e d phenomena. This liter a t u r e has taken four p r i m a r y
forms: (1) r e s e a r c h o n p a r e n t i n g styles and t h e i r impact o n c hildren's
s o c i a l i z a t i o n (e.g., Baumrind, 1967; Lytton, 1980); (2) r e s e a r c h on
child noncompliance, a g g r e s s i o n and a n tisocial b e h a v i o r (e.g., Parke &
Slaby, 1983; Patterson, 1982); (3) investi g a t i o n s of the "normal"
d e v e l o p m e n t of o p p o s i t i o n in c h i l d r e n (e.g., Lampard, 1986; Wenar,
198.2); a n d (4) studies of chil d r e n ' s language d e v e l o p m e n t and
c o m m u n i c a t i o n (e.g., Garvey, 1984; Haslett, 1983). E a c h of these lines
of r e s e a r c h b r i n g s a s l i g h t l y dif f e r e n t focus of i n q u i r y and set of
a s s u m p t i o n s to the s t u d y of p a r e n t - c h i l d c o n flict a n d interaction. The
r e m a i n d e r of this c h a p t e r will b r i e f l y re v i e w e a c h of t hese four
a p p r o a c h e s .
S o c i a l i z a t i o n
A s a l l u d e d to previously, a m a j o r focus o f i n q u i r y for
d e v e l o p m e n t a l i s t s c o n c e r n e d w i t h p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n has b e e n
s o c i a l i z a t i o n (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Maccoby, 1984). W i t h i n this
paradigm, p a r e n t s hav e b e e n s t u d i e d as " s o c i a l i z i n g agents" (e.g.,
M a c c o b y and M a r t i n (1983) noted, "a m ajor aspect of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n
process is child r e n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of the a b i l i t y to m o n i t o r and control
their o w n b e h a v i o r ... " (p. 3). Historically, m u c h of the e a r l y
r e s earch in this area u t i l i z e d factor a n a lytic studies of p a r e n t i n g
a ttitudes and beh a v i o r s to d e v e l o p "typologies" of p a r e n t i n g styles, and
then s t u d i e d t hese styles in r e l a t i o n to v a r i o u s c h i l d o u t c o m e s (e.g.,
Baumrind, 1967). More recently, a t t e n t i o n has s h i f t e d to obser v a t i o n a l
studies o f p a r e n t - c h i l d interaction, w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h on
parent b e h a v i o r as it relates to c hild c o m p l i a n c e (e.g., Lo n d e r v i l l e &
Main, 1981; Lytton, 1980; Westerman, 1990), with c o m p l i a n c e b e i n g v i e w e d
as an important p r e c u r s o r to the d e v e l o p m e n t of s e l f - c o n t r o l (Kopp,
1982) a n d c o n s c i e n c e (Lytton, 1980) .
Th e d e v e l o p m e n t a l r e s e a r c h o n c o m p l i a n c e i n e v i t a b l y y i e l d e d
i nform a t i o n about its opposite, the "default" c a t e g o r y of noncompliance.
M u c h of this r e s e a r c h has important i m p l i cations for an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
p a r e n t - c h i l d confl i c t (specific r e s e a r c h findings are d i s c u s s e d in the
next chapter). However, "...a l i m i t a t i o n of c o m p l i a n c e and
n o n c o m p l i a n c e c o n s t r u c t s is that the y i n h e r e n t l y reflect
c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of the c h i l d as a p a s s i v e rec i p i e n t of parental
influence" (Kuczynski, Kochanska, R a d k e - Y a r r o w & Girnius-Brown, 1987,
p. 799) . Similarly, the "socialization" p e r s p e c t i v e that u n derlies
this r e s e a r c h i m p l i c i t l y defi n e s conflict as s o m e t h i n g undesirable; as
tantamount to a "breakdown" in p a r e n t - c h i l d interaction. Thus, a l t h o u g h
the s o c i a l i z a t i o n l iterature has p r o v i d e d some u s e f u l "indirect" d ata on
p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict, the implicit assump t i o n s of the a p p r o a c h have
n e c e s s a r y c o n t r i b u t o r to individual develo p m e n t and r e l a t i o n a l growth.
C l i n i c a l R e s e a r c h on N o n c o m p l i a n c e and A n t i s o c i a l B e h a v i o r
A great deal of d a t a r e l evant to the s t u d y of p a r e n t - c h i l d
conflict has c o m e f r o m r e s e a r c h e r s w h o s e explicit focus has b e e n on
m a l a d a p t i v e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of conflict an d noncorapliant c h i l d behavior.
Historically, som e of the first significant d i s c u s s i o n s of the normal
d e v e l o p m e n t of c h i l d r e n ' s o p p o s i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r came f rom clinicians
c o n c e r n e d wit h the p r o c e s s e s w h e r e b y "normal" o p p o s i t i o n can develop
into c l i n i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of antisocial b e h a v i o r (e.g., Jenkins,
1935; Levy, 1955; Spitz, 1957) . T h e s e e arly d i s c u s s i o n s were g e n e r a l l y
gu i d e d b y a p s y c h o a n a l y t i c perspective. From this perspective,
c l i n i c i a n s d e s c r i b e d b o t h no r m a l a n d clinical m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of
o p p o s i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r (see Lampard, 1986; W e n a r 1982, for revi e w s of
this l i t e r a t u r e ) . Cent r a l to this l i terature was the a s s u m p t i o n that
h e a l t h y d e v e l o p m e n t r e q uires a d a ptive means of r e s i s t i n g e x t e r n a l
i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h s e l f - d i r e c t e d activity. A l t h o u g h this e a r l y theory
was p r o m i s i n g in its expli c i t r e c o g n i t i o n of the i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of
normal a n d a b n o r m a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of opposition, there was r e l a t i v e l y
little r e s e a r c h b a s e d o n this perspective.
W i t h the g r o w i n g inf l u e n c e of beha v i o r a l models, m u c h of the
r e s e a r c h o n c l i n i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of n o n c o m p l i a n c e b e c a m e g r o u n d e d in
operant c o n d i t i o n i n g m o d e l s (e.g., Green, F o r e h a n d & McMahon, 1979;
Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Wahler, 1969). This line of r e s e a r c h has
samples of " n o n r e f e r r e d children" are sometimes i n c luded in studies for
p u r poses of c o m p a r i s o n ) . Recently, a great deal of r e s e a r c h has
i n v e s t i g a t e d the d e v e l o p m e n t of aversive and c o e rcive b e h a v i o r u t i l i z i n g
a "social i n t e r a c t i o n a l p e r s p ective" (Patterson & Reid, 1984), that
relies o n o b s e r v a t i o n a l methods to examine interactional pro c e s s e s and
s t r u c t u r e s .
This latter line of r e s e a r c h is e x e m p l i f i e d in the o n g o i n g
r e s e a r c h of G e r a l d Pa t t e r s o n a n d his associates (e.g., Patterson, 1976;
Patterson, 1982; Pa t t e r s o n & Reid, 1984). Pat t e r s o n has i d entified a
number of i n t e r a c t i o n a l m e a s u r e s that d i f f e r e n t i a t e f a m i l i e s w i t h
a ggr e s s i v e c h i l d r e n f rom n o n - r e f e r r e d families. In general, Patterson
has found that the f a m i l y in t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n of r e f e r r e d families is
m a r k e d b y an i n t e r a c t i o n style that involves a g r e a t e r p r o p e n s i t y to
start c o n flict o n the part of all family members, a g r e a t e r likelihood
that suc h c o n f l i c t s will be r e c i p r o c a t e d thro u g h "counterattack", and a
g rea t e r l i k e l i h o o d that the c o n flict will be c o n t i n u e d in an e x t e n d e d
sequence. P a t t e r s o n (1982) a t t e m p t e d to e x p l a i n his f i n dings b y
u t i l i z i n g c o n c e p t s f rom social l e a rning t h e o r y and, to a lesser extent,
fro m f a m i l y systems approaches. He and his c o l l e a g u e s hav e p r o d u c e d a
large b o d y of r e s e a r c h a m p l y d e m o n s t r a t i n g that extr e m e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s
of a v e r s i v e and c o e r c i v e b e h a v i o r at e a r l y ages are r e l a t e d to social
a n d a c a d e m i c p r o b l e m s in later y e a r s (e.g., Patterson, 1993).
T h e r e ca n be no d i s p u t i n g that extremes of c o n f l i c t an d c hild
n o n c o m p l i a n c e c a n have d e l e t e r i o u s effects on r e l a t i o n a l an d individual
well-being. E x t r e m e forms of n o n c o m p l i a n t b e h a v i o r are the most
1977). R e s e a r c h on suc h b e h a v i o r has helped, us u n d e r s t a n d how some
m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict can be a s s o c i a t e d w ich negative
d e v e l o p m e n t a l outcomes. A l t h o u g h such studies h a v e p r o d u c e d excellent
d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a on m a l a d a p t i v e patterns of f a m i l y interaction, the
stated focus of m u c h of this r e s e a r c h (clinical m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of
noncompliance) has l i m i t e d its y i e l d in terms of t h e o r y or r e s e a r c h on
p o t e n t i a l a d a p t i v e fun c t i o n s of conflict and c h i l d opposition. As
Shantz (1987) ha s argued, b y e q u a t i n g conflict w i t h a g g r e s s i o n and
similar e x t r e m e behaviors, d e v e l o p m e n t a l i s t s h a v e n e g l e c t e d to study
confl i c t ' s b a s i c forms an d effects.
D e v e l o p m e n t a l R e s e a r c h on O p p o s i t i o n a l B e h a v i o r
In re c e n t y ears there has b e e n a rene w e d interest in s t u dying
c h i l d r e n ' s o p p o s i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r as an important d e v e l o p m e n t a l
p h e n o m e n o n in its ow n right (e.g., Du, 1992; C r o c k e n b e r g & Litman, 1990;
Kuczynksi, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, & Girnius-Brown, 1987; K u czynski &
Kochanska, 1990; Lampard, 1986; see Lampard, 1986 an d Wenar, 1982 for
reviews of r e s e a r c h don e d u r i n g the 1920s and 3 0 s ) . T h e s e studies have
d e s c r i b e d c a t e g o r i e s of n o n c o m p l i a n c e and e x a m i n e d t h e m in terms of
their d e v e l o p m e n t a l trends, effects, and correlates. T his r e s e a r c h has
b e e n g u i d e d b y the p e r s p e c t i v e that h e a l t h y o p p o s i t i o n is a s s o c i a t e d
w ith s e l f - a s - a g e n t ; w i t h competence, autonomy, independence, m a s t e r y and
i n itiative (Wenar, 1982). W h e r e a s c o m p l i a n c e s eems an important
c o mponent of self-control, s o c i a l l y skil l e d o p p o s i t i o n a p p e a r s important
recent r e s e a r c h "supports the no t i o n that c o m p l i a n c e and heal t h y
r esistance are r e a l l y o p p osite sides of the same coin" (Du, 1992, p.
96) .
I n h erent in r e s e a r c h o n children's o p p o s i t i o n is the a ssumption
that p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict is natural and n e c e s s a r y for development.
Some of this r e s e a r c h has e x t e n d e d its focus on c h i l d r e n ' s o p p o s i t i o n to
examine b r o a d e r e p i s o d i c features of p a r e n t - c h i l d c o n f l i c t (e.g., Du,
1992; Kochanska, Kuczynski, R a d k e - Y a r r o w & Welsh, 1987; Kuczynski, et
al, 1987; Lampard, 1986). However, most of this r e s e a r c h has not been
g u i d e d b y an y m o d e l of how social conflict c o n t r i b u t e s to relational
development. Tha t is, a l t h o u g h o p p o s i t i o n has b e e n c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as
important for indi v i d u a l growth, the role of o p p o s i t i o n and conflict in
the d e v e l o p m e n t of the p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p , an d the subsequent
effects this m a y have, have not b een significant foci of the o r y or
r e s e a r c h .
Interpe. ^nal C o m m u n i c a t i o n A p p r o a c h e s
T h e final "line" of r e s e a r c h that has c o n t r i b u t e d to an
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of o p p o s i t i o n a n d conflict rea l l y c o n s i s t s of two
a ppr o a c h e s that have in c o m m o n a focus o n inter p e r s o n a l communication.
The first of t h e s e consists of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c e x a m i n a t i o n s of
c h i l d r e n ' s v e r b a l conflict stra t e g i e s (e.g., B r e n n e i s & Lein, 1977;
DOrval & Gundy, 1990; Emihovich, 1986; Garvey, 1984; Haslett, 1983;
Shantz, 1987 r e v i e w s some of this l i t e r a t u r e ) . This r e s e a r c h has
verbal d i sputes. The second co m m u n i c a t i o n s p e r s p e c t i v e has been
labelled the "pragmatic perspective", and has strong t heoretical
connections to s y s t e m s - o r i e n t e d approaches to fa m i l y process. Whereas
the fo r m e r line of inqu i r y has g e n e r a l l y b e e n "atheoretical" reg a r d i n g
the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and i n t e ractional functions of social conflict, the
latter a p p r o a c h has o f f e r e d a useful p e r s p e c t i v e on these functions,
which m i g h t be u s e f u l l y inc o r p o r a t e d into d e v e l o p m e n t a l r e s e a r c h on
op p o s i t i o n and conflict. Each a p p r o a c h will be d i s c u s s e d in the section
that follows, w i t h the d i s c u s s i o n of the p r a g m a t i c a p p r o a c h b e i n g more
involved g i v e n its pot e n t i a l for c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e o r y about social
c o n f l i c t .
S o c i o l i n g u i s t s have c o n t r i b u t e d m uch to the s t u d y of children's
conflicts. W i t h i n this p e r s p e c t i v e "conflicts of interest are a fact of
life in c n i l d r e n ' s interactions" (Garvey, 1984; p. 140). W i t h i n this
a p p r o a c h c o n f l i c t s are not d e s c r i b e d in terms of t heir p o s i t i v e or
n e g a t i v e p o tential. T h e y are s i m p l y a common p l a c e s p e e c h event and are
thus an imp o r t a n t focus of inquiry. Thus, c h i l d r e n ' s conflicts,
t y p i c a l l y b e t w e e n peers or siblings, are studied as part of a broa d e r
e x p l o r a t i o n of the c o m m u n c a t i v e functions of speech. As Genishi and Di
Paolo state, "soc i o l i n g u i s t s hav e bee n inter e s t e d in c h i l d r e n ’s
ar g u m e n t s as d i s c o u r s e ph e n o m e n o n " (1982, p. 50). Thi s line of r e s e a r c h
has p r o d u c e d d a t a on the s t r u c t u r e of chil d r e n ' s v e r b a l d i s p u t e s an d has
d e t a i l e d some of the d e v e l o p m e n t a l changes in c h i l d r e n ' s d i s p u t e
s tra t e g i e s (e.g., Haslett, 1984). A l t h o u g h this type of a p p r o a c h has
muc h to offer, its e x p licit focus on the l i nguistic s t r u c t u r e of
contri b u t e s to individual or r elational development.
T h e s e c o n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s - o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h to the s t u d y of
conflict is g u i d e d b y a "pragmatic p e r s p e c t i v e " . This a p p r o a c h
inc o r p o r a t e s m a n y concepts fro m general systems t h e o r y and has b een v e r y
i nfluential in the s t u d y of f a m i l y dynamics and in fa m i l y - s y s t e m s
a p p r o a c h e s to therapy. In a p i o n e e r i n g work in this area, Watzlawick,
Be a v i n a n d J a c k s o n (1967) s t r e s s e d that a focus on p r a g m a t i c s entails
looking at the b e h a v i o r a l effects of communication. Som e of the basic
tenets of this p e r s p e c t i v e are: (a) social i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e e d s through
i n f o r m a t i o n e x c hanges that are m a n i f e s t e d in c o m m u n i c a t i v e behavior; (b)
all social b e h a v i o r (both ve r b a l and nonverbal) is c o m m u n c a t i v e in that
it p o s s e s s e s p o t e n t i a l i n f o rmational content for the interactants; and,
(c) all c o m m u n i c a t i o n defines, mai n t a i n s or changes the nature of the
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the i n t e r actants (Watzlawick et al. 1967).
C o m m u n i c a t i o n serves to de f i n e the nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e c a u s e e v e r y
exchange of m e s s a g e s says s o m e t h i n g about the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the
interactants, e v e n if that s o m e t h i n g is o n l y a c o n f i r m a t i o n of the
status quo. W i t h i n this process, conflict is v i e w e d dynamically, "as a
natural, i n e v i t a b l e o c c u r r e n c e in the c o ntinuous r e s t r u c t u r i n g of
re l ationships" (Millar, Rogers & Bavelas, 1984, p. 231) . To u n d e r s t a n d
this p e r s p e c t i v e o n conflict r e q u i r e s a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the process
w h e r e b y r e l a t i o n s h i p s are c r e a t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h c o m m u n i c a t i v e
b e h a v i o r .
As W a t z l a w i c k et al. (1967) suggested, all c o m m u n i c a t i o n
c o n t r i b u t e s to the d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n interactants
"content" of the m e s s a g e a n d about the rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the
interactants. For example, whe n a 3tudent says, "Excuse me, c ould you
explain s o m e t h i n g to me?" to a professor, in a d d i t i o n to the requ e s t for
a s sistance (i.e., the content of the message), there is also an implicit
c o n f i r m a t i o n of the status b e t w e e n the two (i.e., the relat i o n a l
a s p e c t ) . Each m e s s a g e b e t w e e n individuals thus offers some implicit or
explicit d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the interactants.
W a t z l a w i c k et al. (1967) go on to point out chat while eac h m e s s a g e ma y
o ffer a d e f i n i t i o n of the relationship, any s uch d e f i n i t i o n m a y
s u b s e q u e n t l y b e accepted, r e j e c t e d or d i s c o n f i r m e d (i.e., i g n o r e d ) . In
the p r e c e d i n g example, the p r o f e s s o r m a y o f f e r assistance, and t h e r e b y
accept the d e f i n i t i o n of the relationship, but could c o n c e i v a b l y
respond; "I k n o w you! You aren't in this section. Yo u sh o u l d take that
q u e s t i o n to y o u r instructor." This type of r e s ponse w o u l d r e p r e s e n t a
r e j e c t i o n of the d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p implicit in the
s t udent's question. A n e x t e n d e d sequence in w h i c h the student then
"countered" the p r o f e s s o r ' s sta t e m e n t might signal the start of an overt
verbal conflict.
T h e p r e c e d i n g c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n suggests the
c o m p l e x i t y of social conflict. B e c a u s e of the "dual" content and
r e l a t i o n s h i p a s p e c t s of communication, any conflict m a y exist on at
least t w o levels. T h e h u s b a n d and wife who h a v e what is later d e s c r i b e d
as a "silly" f ight a bout h o w to store butter, m a y h ave b e e n in conflict
about the "content" of their d i s c u s s i o n (e.g., c o m p e t i n g h y p o t h e s e s
about b u t t e r s t o r a g e ) , but m a y als o have b e e n in c o n f l i c t about the
decisions abo.ir h o u s e h o l d m a t t e r s ) . Obviously, the r e lational
implications of any m e s s a g e are likely to be m u l t i f a c e t e d and hav e the
p ot e n t i a l to impact on vari o u s aspects of a g i v e n relationship. In any
case, d e s p i t e w h a t e v e r the couple says or feels about t heir interaction,
it is c l e a r from their b e h a v i o r that they have h a d a conflict: a
conflict that can be d e s c r i b e d in terms of onset, tactics and eventual
resolution. Moreover, d e s c r i p t i v e data about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
s t r ucture of the couples' conflicts, such as a g r e e m e n t / d i s a g r e e m e n t
ratio, m a y p r o v i d e v a l u a b l e insight into the overall n a t u r e of their
relationship. Thus, the a n a lysis of c o m m u n i c a t i o n / i n t e r a c t i o n affords a
direct b e h a v i o r a l means of a s s e s s i n g aspects of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
the interactants. To r e a f f i r m a point mad e earlier, the e x c hange of
m e s sages is the relationship. T his v e r y type of p e r s p e c t i v e has at
least i m p l i c i t l y g u i d e d the I ' ferature on attachment, in w hich
"attachment behavior" p r o v i d e s a m e a s u r e of rela t i o n a l functioning.
T h e for e g o i n g suggests that social conflict helps to de f i n e and
redef i n e the n a t u r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n interactants. In
a d d i t i o n to s e r v i n g this important interpersonal function, social
c onflict also impacts in important ways on individual d e v e lopment. To
select a signif i c a n t example, W a t z l a w i c k et al. (1967) n o t e d that as we
m u t u a l l y def i n e ou r relationships, so too do we s i m u l t a n e o u s l y define
and r e d e f i n e aspects of ourselves. As the y put it, "quite apart from
the m ere e x c h a n g e of information, man has to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h ot h e r s for
the sake of his ow n awa r e n e s s of self..." (pp. 84-85). Thus, t h r o u g h
o ur c o m m u n i c a t i o n w ith others, we offer nnd r e s p o n d to m e s s a g e s that
This n o t i o n o f s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n relates to psychological, or individual
aspects of the c o m m u n i c a t i v e / i n t e r a c t i o n a l process, an d has obvious
implications for those i n t e r e s t e d in u n d e r s t a n d i n g ho w c hildren's
o p p o s i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r s relate to b o t h their auton o m o u s str i v i n g s and to
their social conflicts.
S u m m a r y
W i t h i n d e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y it is u n l i k e l y that anyone would
dispute that confl i c t an d o p p o s i t i o n can m ake important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to
he a l t h y i ndividual an d r e l a t i o n a l development. However, the implicit
as s u m ptions of the "socialization" p e r s p e c t i v e s e e m to limit
d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r y or r e s e a r c h o n the a d a ptive f u n c t i o n s of conflict
and opposition. This s i t u a t i o n is c h a n g i n g somewhat, w i t h the recent
renewal of i n t erest in the n o r m a l d e v e l o p m e n t of c h i l d r e n ' s o p p o s i t i o n
(e.g., Du, 1992; Kuc z y n s k i & Kochanska, 1990; Lampard, 1986, Wenar,
1982). A l t h o u g h p r o m i s i n g in m a n y respects, the focus o n o p p o s i t i o n
will l i k e l y b e most fruitful if c o n c e p t u a l i z e d w i t h i n the context of
r elat i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g a n d development. This r e q uires a d y n a m i c and
s y s temic c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of conflict, similar to that s e e n in
i n t e rpersonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n approaches, in w hich c o n f l i c t is seen as an
CHAP T E R THREE
M A J O R R E S E A R C H A N D EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
R e s earch on P a r e nt-Child Conflict
As n o t e d previously, t here is v e r y little r e s e a r c h that examines
p a r e n t - c h i l d confl i c t per s e . That is, there are v e r y few studies that
examine c o n flict episodes from onset thro u g h to resolution. However, as
suggested in c h a p t e r two, there is c o n s i d e r a b l e l i t e r a t u r e that deals
with c o n f l i c t - r e l a t e d phenomena. From this l i t e r a t u r e it is p o s sible to
piece t'v'; ;ther some in f o r m a t i o n about the t e m poral f o r m of pare n t - c h i Id
conflict (e.g., onset, duration, resolution), an d the individual
"tactics" that p a r e n t s an d c h i l d r e n t y p i c a l l y u s e in t h e i r attempts to
influence or resist one another. The next s e c t i o n reviews this
literature, first e x a m i n i n g d a t a o n the temporal f orm of conflict
episodes, an d t h e n d i s c u s s i n g what is k n o w n about pa r e n t an d c hild
b e h a v i o r d u r i n g control a n d c o n f l i c t encounters. T h e focus will be on
literature r e l e v a n t to p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict d u r i n g e a r l y childhood.
C o n f l i c t Episodes
Incidence. T h e start of a n epis o d e of i n t e r p e r s o n a l conflict has
bee n v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d as i n v o l v i n g a 2- or 3 -step inter a c t i o n a l
sequence. T h e for m e r d e f i n i t i o n requires: (a) a n initial control
attempt mad e b y p e r s o n A, a n d (2) a subsequent o p p o s i t i o n b y p e r s o n B.
definition: M o t h e r - "Go get y o u r coat so we c a n leave". C h i l d - "No,
no, no (screams)! Don't want to!" The latter d e f i n i t i o n w o u l d include
the first two steps and w o u l d also require an a d d i t i o n a l step in which
p e r s o n A "opposes the opposition" of p e r s o n B (Shantz, 1987) . Either
d e f i n i t i o n s e e m s defensible. The f o l l o w i n g r e v i e w wil l d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between: (a) initial parent controls (step 1); (b) the subse q u e n t
p r o p o r t i o n of seq u e n c e s inv o l v i n g immediate c h i l d c o m p l i a n c e or
n o n c o m p l i a n c e (step 2) ,- and, (c) the f r e q u e n c y of e p i s o d e s in w h i c h
c h ildren's n o n c o m p l i a n c e results in an addit i o n a l p a r e n t a l control (step
3) .
H o w f r e q u e n t l y do p a r e n t s issue controls to t h e i r y o u n g children?
L ytton (1980) e s t i m a t e d that pare n t s issue a cont r o l a p p r o x i m a t e l y e very
2.5 m i n u t e s to t heir 2 l / 2 - y e a r - o l d sons. A n o t h e r n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d y of
c h i l d r e n a g e d 27 m o n t h s r e p o r t e d a similar e s t i m a t e of a cont r o l e v e r y 3
minutes (Minton, K a g a n & Levine, 1971). U s i n g s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t
criteria, Lee a n d Bates (1985) found that t h e i r 2 4 - m o n t h - o l d child r e n
"approached or got into trou b l e once e very 5 m i n u t e s " (pp. 1317-1318).
The f r e q u e n c y of initial contr o l s appears to v a r y b y age, at least over
the e a r l y c h i l d h o o d years, w i t h y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n r e c e i v i n g m o r e parental
controls (Schaffer & C rook 1980; Vaughn, K opp & Krakow, 1984) . Thus,
the e a r l y c h i l d h o o d y e a r s involve a h i g h f r e q u e n c y of p a r e n t - c h i l d
interactions w h e r e t here is at least a p o t e n t i a l f o r conflict.
T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h a n initial p a r e n t a l c o n t r o l is met b y
c o m p l i a n c e or n o n c o m p l i a n c e ha s b e e n a d d r e s s e d b y n u m e r o u s studies.
Overall, c o m p l i a n c e rates for samples of n o n r e f e r r e d c h i l d r e n a ged 2-11
John s o n & Lobitz, 1974). T h e r e appears to be a g r a d u a l improvement in
comp l i a n c e r ates ove r the first 2 to 3 y e a r s of life (Lampard, 1986;
M cLaughlin, 1980), w i t h some i n dication of a "plateau" b e t w e e n this
p e r i o d a n d age 5 (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990). That some d e g r e e of
n o n c o m p l i a n c e con t i n u e s to b e frequent d u r i n g c h i l d h o o d is i n dicated b y
P a t t e r s o n an d Forga t c h ' s (1987) c o n t e n t i o n that a compl i a n c e rate of 50-
60% is w i t h i n "nornal" bo u n d s for 10- to 1 1 - y e a r - o l d males. Thus, it
appears that the normal course of d evelopment involves a significant
l i k e l i h o o d that a p a r e n t a l control will be met w i t h some deg r e e of
r e s i s t a n c e eve n into the m i d d l e chi l d h o o d years. H o w d o pare n t s resp o n d
to this o p p o s i t i o n to t heir controls?
A l t h o u g h n u m erous studies have e x a m i n e d initial p a r e n t a l controls
(step 1) an d c h i l d r e n ' s subs e q u e n t c o m p l i a n c e / n o n c o m p l i a n c e (step 2),
r e l a t i v e l y few hav e e x a m i n e d subsequent "steps" in the i n t e r a c t i o n
sequence. A n e x c e p t i o n is L y t t o n (1980), who f o u n d that, c o n f r o n t e d by
n o n c o m p l i a n c e f r o m their 2 - y ear-old sons, p a r e n t s r e s p o n d e d w i t h a
po s i t i v e r e s p o n s e 10% of the time, showed no r e s p o n s e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 33%
of the time, an d r e s o r t e d to an a d ditional cont r o l or some n e g a t i v e
be h a v i o r the r e m a i n d e r of the time (i.e., a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55%). Thus,
sl i g h t l y m o r e t h a n half of the child's n o n c o m p l i a n c e r e s u l t e d in
addit i o n a l controls.
In sum, the a v a i l a b l e d ata indicate that p a r e n t s issue numerous
controls to t h e i r y o u n g c h i l d r e n (i.e., a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 e v e r y 2.5
minutes) a n d that t heir y o u n g c h i l d r e n c o m p l y a bout 50-80% of the time
to these initial controls. W h e r e comp l i a n c e is not i m m e d i a t e l y
reprimand, but do "accept" some de g r e e of o p p o s i t i o n b y s h o w i n g no
response, or e v e n "reward" r e s i s t a n c e through a p o s i t i v e action.
D u r a t i o n . The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s u g gests that c o nflicts occur
with s ome r e g u l a r i t y in normal p a r e n t - c h i l d interaction. A l t h o u g h
es t i m a t e s of c o n flict length or d u r a t i o n are rare, the ava i l a b l e
e v i d e n c e suggests that most con f l i c t s are brief. H o l d e n (1983) found
that 70% of his m o t h e r - c h i l d con f l i c t s lasted an aver a g e of 15 seconds
(details about the r e m a i n i n g 30% were not g i v e n ) . D o w d n e y and Pickles
(1991) found that their c o n t r o l / c o n f l i c t episodes r a n g e d in length from
1 to 99 turns, w i t h a m e d i a n length of 4 turns. This a g a i n suggests
that the aver a g e length of con f l i c t s is short. Similarly, V u c h i n i c h
(1987) f ound a m e a n length of 4.6 turns in his s t u d y of verbal conflicts
d u r i n g f a m i l y d i n n e r s (mean age of c h i l d r e n 11.7 years). R e i d (1986)
found that ove r 90% of all "aversive" episodes lasted 11 seconds or less
(Reid's sample i n c l u d e d n o n d i s t r e s s e d a n d c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d m o t h e r - c h i l d
dyads w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s m e a n age b e i n g 8.4 years). O n l y 3-5% of the
a v e r s i v e e p i sodes lasted b e t w e e n 12 an d 23 seconds, a n d episodes longer
than 23 seconds wer e e x t r e m e l y r are (0.2% to 3%).
Re i d ' s (1986) d a t a suggest a p o t e n t i a l l y important link b e t w e e n
c o n flict d u r a t i o n and confl i c t intensity. He f o u n d that "the longer an
a v e r s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n p a r e n t a n d child persists, the m o r e likely
it is tha t the p a r e n t will e n g a g e in s e r i o u s l y a b u s i v e b e h a v i o r tow a r d
the child" (p. 251). This r e l a t i o n s h i p h eld for g r o u p s of n o n r e f e r r e d
m o t h e r - c h i l d d y a d s a n d for the c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d group, a l t h o u g h the
l i k e l i h o o d of a b u s i v e b e h a v i o r was g r e a t e r for the r e f e r r e d group. W i t h
increased e p i s o d e length was r e l a t e d to increased n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r and
affect for b o t h m o t h e r s and their children. L y t t o n (1980) found that
mothers who e n g a g e d in longer sequences also displayed' hi g h e r rates of
negative acti o n s a n d s c o r e d lower o n measures of p o s i t i v e actions, such
as r e s p o n s i v e n e s s and a p propriateness.
I s s u e s . T h e r e appe a r s to be s u p r i s i n g l y little r e s e a r c h o n the
types of issues that giv e rise to p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict, or on ho w
d if f e r e n t issues impact o n s u c h conflict. G o o d e n o u g h (1931), wh o u s e d
m a t e r n a l - r e p o r t d a t a to s t u d y chil d r e n ' s anger, f o u n d that encounters
w ith m o t h e r s in r e l a t i o n to "routines" were the mos t frequent cause of
child a n g e r d u r i n g the s e c o n d year. This was f o l l o w e d b y "conflicts
with a u t h o r i t y " as the next high e s t precipitant of c h i l d r e n ' s anger.
Lyt t o n (1980) d i d not e x a m i n e c h i l d b e h a v i o r in r e l a t i o n to d i fferent
issues, but d i d look at p a r e n t a l b e h a v i o r as a f u n c t i o n of issue type.
His resu l t s s u g g e s t that p a r e n t s util i z e a high p r o p o r t i o n of direct
commands (directives an d prohibitions) in situations where t hey are
setting limits o n the c h i l d r e n ' s behavior. In contrast pare n t s u s e d a
high p r o p o r t i o n of s u g g e s t i o n s d u r i n g times of play. Finally,
S c h n e i d e r - R o s e n a n d W e n z - G r o s s (1990) u s e d several s i t u a t i o n s in w h i c h
mothers t r i e d to g a i n c o m p l i a n c e f rom their y o u n g children, and found
signif i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in c o m p l i a n c e as a function of the type of
situation. O n e w o u l d als o expect that the q u a l i t y of c hildren's
o p p o s i t i o n m i g h t v a r y as a f u n c t i o n of different issues. A n e x p l o r a t i o n
of i s s u e - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r e n t - c h i l d conflict was a m a j o r
ob j e c t i v e of the p r e s e n t research.
and e s c a l a t i o n s in n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r suggests that a swift r e s o l u t i o n to
p a r e n t - c h i l d c o n flict is important in a v o i d i n g its n e g a t i v e potential.
Als o li k e l y to be of i m p o r t a n c e is the nature of the r e s o l u t i o n reached
b e t w e e n parent and child. As noted, c h i l d r e n t y p i c a l l y c o m p l y
i m m e d i a t e l y w i t h 50-60% of p a r e n t a l commands. W h e r e such immediate
c o m p l i a n c e does not occur, m o t h e r s "drop" the m a t t e r or sho w no response
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1/3 of the time (Lampard, 1986; Lytton, 1980). A number
of studies h a v e e x a m i n e d c o n f l i c t resolutions. In the first work of
this kind, Minton, K a g a n an d L e v i n e (1971) looked at the r e s o l u t i o n of
sequences in w h i c h 2 7 - m o n t h - o l d c h i l d r e n d i d not c o m p l y w i t h a maternal
p r o h i b i t i o n ("violation s e q u e n c e s " ) . The most frequent r e s o l u t i o n to
such s e q u e n c e s was v o l u n t a r y c h i l d compl i a n c e (43%), f o l l o w e d b y
mothers' p h y s i c a l l y "forcing" c o m p l i a n c e (18%), a c c e p t i n g d i s o b e d i e n c e
(15%), a n d c o m p r o m i s i n g w i t h the c h i l d (13%). In a s t u d y of c h i l d r e n
aged 10, 16, a n d 24 months, L a m p a r d (1986) f ound that, overall, the most
f requent o u t c o m e of a c o n flict was for mothers to a b a n d o n the issue
(47%), f o l l o w e d next b y v o l u n t a r y c hild c o m p l i a n c e (24%), c o m p r o m i s e
(16%), a n d f o r c e d c o m p l i a n c e (13%) . S i g n i f i c a n t ag e effects i n c luded a
linear i n c rease w i t h age in v o l u n t a r y c h i l d c o m p l i a n c e and a linear
d e c r e a s e w i t h age in the f r e q u e n c y of m o t h e r ' s a b a n d o n i n g the conflict.
Finally, K o c h a n s k a et al. (1987) stud i e d the o u t c o m e of control episodes
b e t w e e n m o t h e r s an d c h i l d r e n a g e d 15-51 months. T h e most co m m o n
r e s o l u t i o n was u l t i m a t e m a t e r n a l success b y p e r s u a s i o n (46%). M o t h e r s
a b a n d o n e d c o n f l i c t s frequently, either im m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the first
control was o p p o s e d (22%) or a f t e r furt h e r c o n trols w e r e iss u e d (14%) .
to "forced") t o o k p l a c e in 4% of episodes. There was a significant age-
related i n c rease in m a t ernal compr o m i s e and a d e c r e a s e in for c e d
c o m p l i a n c e .
Parental Control Strategies
Parents c a n u t i l i z e a wide range of stra t e g i e s in a t t e m p t i n g to
control their children, r a n g i n g from g e n t l y st a t e d s u g g e s t i o n s to
physical i n t e r v e n t i o n s to abusive aggression. In a d d i t i o n to v a r y i n g on
this d i m e n s i o n of "degree of control", parental s t r a t e g i e s can v a r y in
the de g r e e to w h i c h t h e y are resp o n s i v e to their c h i l d r e n ' s o n g o i n g
a c tivities or needs. Bot h of these dimensions have b e e n s t u d i e d in
r e l ation to c h i l d r e n ' s compliance.
R e g a r d i n g the "control" dim e n s i o n of p a r e n t a l strategies, there
seems to be g e n e r a l a g reement that children's c o m p l i a n c e is a s s o c i a t e d
with p a r e n t a l r e l i a n c e on "authoritative" an d n o n - p o w e r a s s e r t i v e
methods (Crockenberg & Litman, 1990; M a c c o b y & Martin, 1983) . In
addition, h i g h l y p o w e r as s e r t i v e methods (e.g., anger, harshness,
physi c a l intervention) are a s s o c i a t e d with c h i l d r e n ' s a n g r y a n d defiant
b e h a v i o r (Crockenberg, 1987; C r o c k e n b e r g & Litman, 1990; Kuczynski, et
al, 1987; Oldershaw, Walters & Hall, 1986). It t h e r e f o r e seems that a
p a r ent's best c h a n c e for success in the context of a c o n f l i c t w o u l d be
to r e l y o n a n o n - p o w e r c o e r c i v e control tactic. However, the s i t u a t i o n
is not q u i t e so c l e a r cut. Stud i e s that support the u t i l i t y of n o n-power
a s s e r t i v e m e t h o d s in p r o m o t i n g compl i a n c e have g e n e r a l l y r e l i e d on
