Temperament Intraparental Relations

8/13/2019 Temperament Intraparental Relations

1/23

Articles

Interparental Conflict and Preschoolers PeerRelations: The Moderating Roles ofTemperament and GenderKevin M. David, University of Puget Soundand Bridget C. Murphy,Metropolitan State College of Denver

Abstract

The relations between destructive interparental conflict (IPC) and three- to six-year-olds (N =62) peer relations were examined as a function of child temperament and

gender. Regression analyses indicated that effortful control moderated the relations ofIPC with childrens amount of peer interaction as well as with their problematicrelations with peers. Specifically, high IPC was associated with low amount of inter-action and high problematic relations for preschoolers low in effortful control, but itwas related to high amount of interaction and low problems for those high in effortfulcontrol. Additionally, gender differences in the relations between IPC and the amountof peer interaction indicated that IPC was negatively related to the amount of inter-action for girls but positively related to the amount for boys. The findings highlight theneed for examining individual differences in the relations between IPC and the devel-opment of early peer relations.

Keywords: interparental conflict; temperament; peer relations; gender

Research has provided a wealth of information regarding the relations betweendestructive interparental conflict (henceforth called IPC; i.e., frequent and intenseconflict) and childrens adjustment (see Cummings & Davies, 1994, 2002, forreviews). Until recently, however, relatively little attention has been given to therelations between IPC and more subtle aspects of childrens development, such as theirpeer relations (Katz & Gottman, 1994; Parke, Kim, Flyr, McDowell, Simpkins &Killian et al., 2001), although research suggests the importance of studying the impactthat IPC has on childrens relationships outside of the family (Cookston, Harrist &Ainslie, 2003; Du Rocher Schudlich, Shamir & Cummings, 2004; Katz and Gottman,1994, 1995; Kitzmann & Cohen, 2003; Lindsey, MacKinnon-Lewis, Campbell, Frabutt& Lamb, 2002; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999). Further, researchers have becomeincreasingly interested in identifying children who are particularly at risk for problemsas well as factors that protect children from the deleterious effects of destructive IPC

(Cummings & Davies, 2002). In particular, theory (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych

Correspondence should be addressed to Kevin M. David, Department of Psychology, 1500 N.

Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416, USA. Email:[email protected]

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,

Malden, MA 02148, USA.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/23

& Fincham, 1990) and some empirical work (e.g., Davies& Windle, 2001) suggest thattemperament moderates the impact of IPC on childrens adjustment. Yet the moderat-ing effects of temperament in the context of IPC are not fully understood (Cummings& Davies, 2002) and little is known regarding the nature of temperament as a mod-erator of the relations between IPC and childrens peer relations. Thus, the primary

goals of the present study were to examine the relations between destructive IPC andpreschoolers peer relations and to assess the extent to which these relations aremoderated by individual differences in child temperament. Because previous researchalso suggests that boys and girls may be affected differently by IPC exposure (seeDavies & Lindsay, 2001 for a review), another goal was to examine the moderating roleof gender in the associations between IPC and childrens peer relations.

Several theoretical perspectives suggest that exposure to destructive IPC is likely tocontribute to childrens problems with peers. For instance, Grych and Fincham (1990)hypothesized that children exposed to destructive IPC may learn to be aggressive andto use maladaptive problem-solving strategies during peer interactions. Moreover,

Davies and Cummings (1994) asserted that IPC exposure can undermine childrensemotional security, hindering their abilities to successfully cope with daily problemsand to have constructive peer interactions by promoting emotional dysregulation (Katz& Gottman, 1995). Children exposed to destructive IPC also may act out (i.e., misbe-have) to interrupt their parents bickering and regain some sense of emotional security(Cummings & Davies, 1994). This misbehavior may temporarily distract their parentsand end the conflict, which reinforces the use of destructive behaviors during subse-quent exposures to IPC and in other contexts such as peer interactions.

Indeed, previous research supports a relationship between IPC and childrensproblematic peer relations, indicating that preschoolers become more aggressive

toward a peer in a lab setting following exposure to simulated conflict between adultstrangers (Cummings, 1987). In addition, parents reports of IPC are positivelyrelated to their reports of school-aged childrens aggression and problematic peerrelations (Marcus, Lindahl & Malik, 2001; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999) as well asto preschoolers negativity with unfamiliar peers in a lab setting, for example, tryingto take another childs toy (Cookston, Harrist & Ainslie (2003). The findings alsoshow that marital hostility is positively related to preschoolers observed antisocialbehaviors, for example, fighting (Katz & Gottman, 1995) and negative affect (Katz& Gottman, 1997) with their best friend. Interparental conflict also seems to con-tribute to childrens enacted behavior during hypothetical peer interactions, as

parents reports of destructive IPC are positively related to childrens aggressiveresponding during simulated peer conflicts (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2004). Con-sequently, young children exposed to relatively high levels of IPC are particularlylikely to have problematic peer relations.

Further, increases in negative reactions to conflict (El-Sheikh, 1994) are likely tolead children from high conflict homes to avoid social situations in an effort to keepthem out of conflicts with others, perhaps as a way of preventing, and thus regulating,their own emotional arousal (Gordis, Margolin & John, 1997; Parke et al., 2001). Thefindings provide some support for this hypothesis, indicating that preschoolers fromdiscordant families tend to remain at lower, potentially conflict-free levels of involve-

ment, such as parallel play, with their best friend than preschoolers from non-discordant families (Gottman & Katz, 1989). Thus, children from high conflict homesare likely to display relatively low levels of involvement with peers and play less withtheir peers than children from low conflict homes.

2 Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 Social Development,16, 1, 2007


3/23

Moreover, it is important to study the unique relations between IPC and the amountas well as overall quality of childrens peer interactions, because frequency of inter-actions does not always predict acceptance and competence with peers (e.g., Farver &Branstetter, 1994; Gottman, 1977). Indeed, some children who frequently interact withpeers behave aggressively and are disruptive to peer interactions, whereas others are

quite socially competent (Rubin, Coplan, Fox & Calkins, 1995). Similarly, somechildren who engage in low levels of peer interaction (i.e., those who stand back frompeers and watch the activities of others from afar) are rated as higher on internalizingproblems and social fear than are other children, whereas those who spend their timein solitary, quiet exploration or constructive play are rated as no different from theirmore sociable peers on these variables (Henderson, Marshall, Fox & Rubin, 2004).Therefore, the amount of interaction and level of problematic relations are two distinctaspects of childrens peer relations that are important to assess in relation to IPC.

Although theory (e.g., Grych & Fincham, 1990) and research (e.g., Katz & Gottman,1995) suggest that IPC exposure is related to childrens poor peer relations, little is

known regarding the effects of IPC on childrens everyday functioning with a varietyof peers. Whereas assessments of childrens peer interactions in a laboratory provideuseful information, because they allow for comparisons across various childrensinteractions in a controlled setting, single snapshot observations (e.g., Cookstonet al., 2003) do not capture childrens everyday interactions with peers that they know.Therefore, it also is important to study how IPC relates to preschoolers naturallyoccurring interactions with various familiar peers, as these interactions are likely toprovide unique information regarding childrens typical peer interactions and everydayfunctioning. Moreover, using multiple methods to measure peer relations can provideunique information from each and a more complete assessment of childrens overall

functioning with peers. In particular, teachers reports of childrens social competenceare commonly used to assess peer relations and they can provide useful informationbecause teachers know the children well, and may be more objective in their ratingsthan are parents (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 1998).

Furthermore, some research indicates that IPC does not directly predict childrenspeer relationships (Lindsey et al., 2002), possibly because interparental discord doesnot affect all children in the same way and different children vary in their reactions toIPC (Cummings, 1987; Davies & Forman, 2002). Indeed, Cummings found that thelevel of negative emotion that preschoolers expressed in response to interadult conflictvaried, such that some children expressed virtually no negative emotions whereas others

expressed high levels of negative emotion. More recently, Davies and Forman foundthat school-aged children could be classified into three distinct emotional securityprofiles (i.e., secure, dismissing and preoccupied) based on differences in their emo-tional, behavioral and cognitive reactions to simulated conflict. Cummings noted thatindividual differences in responding to conflict might be due, in part, to temperamentaldifferences and Grych and Fincham (1990) suggested that aspects of emotionality andregulatory abilities, which are two central components of temperament (Rothbart &Bates, 1998), are likely to be important when considering the impact of IPC.

Regarding specific aspects of temperament, theory (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997;Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Rothbart & Bates, 1998) and previous research (e.g.,

Eisenberg, Spinrad, Fabes, Reiser, Cumberland, Shepard et al., 2004) suggest that theassociations between IPC and childrens peer relations are likely to be moderated bydispositional effortful control. Rothbart and Bates defined effortful control as theability to inhibit a dominant response to perform a subdominant response (p. 137).

Interparental Conflict and Peer Relations 3



4/23

Effortful control reflects dispositional self-regulation and involves the voluntaryregulation of attention and behavior and the more reactive temperament systems suchas negative emotionality (Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Derryberry andRothbart (1997) suggested that children high in effortful control may be able todisengage from environmental threats and internal feelings of anxiety by focusing their

attention on positive aspects of the environment, such that good effortful control islikely to allows for adaptive actions in contexts where children would otherwise focuson their own distress. Indeed, effortful control is negatively related to six- and seven-year-olds dispositional negative emotionality, suggesting that effortful control mayhelp attenuate negative affect (Rothbart, Ahadi & Hershey, 1994), and it is positivelyrelated to childrens resiliency to stress (Eisenberg, Guthrie, Fabes, Reiser, Murphy,Holmgren et al., 1997; Eisenberg, Valiente, Fabes, Smith, Reiser, Shepard et al., 2003).Moreover, some limited work indicates that vagal tone (a physiological index ofregulation) buffers children from the negative impact of IPC (El-Sheikh, Harger &Whitson, 2001; Katz & Gottman, 1997). Thus, during exposure to IPC, children high

in effortful control may be able to shift their focus from their parents negativebehaviors and emotions to other, more positive aspects of the environment, somewhatbuffering them from the effects of IPC.

In contrast, low effortful control is likely to exacerbate the relations between IPCand problematic peer relations. Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) hypothesized that childrenwho have difficulty regulating their emotional arousal are likely to become easilyoveraroused when they witness others negative states. Indeed, low effortful control isassociated with childrens personal distress in response to an empathy-inducing filmand parents negative emotional expressivity in the home is negatively related tosituational sympathy (in response to the same film) for children low in effortful control

(Valiente, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Cumberland & Losoya, 2004). Therefore, chil-dren low in effortful control may be particularly sensitive to their parents quarrellingand may become overwhelmed by their negative affect during exposure to IPC. Con-sequently, they may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of IPC on their relationswith peers.

Another temperament dimension that may moderate the relations between IPC andpreschoolers peer relations is positive emotionality (Cummings, Goeke-Morey &Papp, 2003). Positive emotionality involves individual differences in frequency andamount of smiling, laughter, pleasure and sensitivity to positive environmental cues(Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler & West, 2000; Rothbart, 1989). Children prone to experi-

encing positive emotions may be particularly sensitive to positive and rewarding cuesin the environment and may perceive stressors as temporary or as having the potentialfor positive outcomes in the future (Lengua, Sandler, West, Wolchik & Curran, 1999);thus, they may be unlikely to focus on threatening cues in stressful situations, whichmay help minimize negative reactions to stressors (Lengua et al., 1999; Rothbart &Ahadi, 1994). Although there is a paucity of research regarding positive emotionalityand adjustment in general, some limited work suggests that positive emotionalitybuffers children from the negative effects of a rejecting parenting style (Lengua et al.,2000). Further, childrens and adolescents positive emotional reactions to IPC inthe home are associated with low levels of externalizing and internalizing problems

(Cummings et al., 2003). Therefore, dispositional positive emotionality may somewhatprotect children from the effects of IPC on their peer relations.Gender also may moderate the relations between destructive IPC and preschoolers

peer relations, as several studies have found gender differences in young childrens




5/23

responses to angry exchanges between adults (e.g., El-Sheikh, 1994; El-Sheikh,Cummings & Reiter, 1996). Although it cannot be concluded that either gender is moreor less susceptible to the effects of IPC (Cummings & Davies, 1994, 2002), boys andgirls responses to IPC are qualitatively different (Davies & Lindsay, 2001). Young boystend to act out by becoming aggressive in response to adults anger, whereas girls tend

to exhibit distress, anxiety and social withdrawal in response to inter-adult conflict(e.g., El-Sheikh, 1994). Because boys and girls different responses to IPC may carryover into their peer relationships, we examined the moderating role of gender. Previouswork suggested that high levels of IPC would be associated with problematic peerrelations for boys but would be related to lower levels of involvement with peers forgirls, as they may internalize their feelings in response to IPC and withdraw from socialinteraction.

Given the limited research on IPC and childrens peer relations (Katz & Gottman,1994; Parke et al., 2001) and the need for further understanding regarding whichchildren are particularly at risk and which children are buffered in the context of IPC

(Cummings & Davies, 2002), we examined the relations between IPC and preschool-ers peer relations as a function of child temperament and gender. To assess IPC,mothers completed measures pertaining to the frequency of their own and their part-ners behaviors and strategies (e.g., yell, insult partner) in the context of IPC. Tominimize the threat of shared-method variance, teachers completed measures of childtemperament. The preschoolers peer relations were assessed with naturalistic obser-vations conducted during free play at their day care center. Trained research assistantsobserved children numerous times over several weeks and coded the amount of theirpeer interactions and various aspects of their problematic peer relations. To obtainanother perspective and measure of the childrens typical peer relations, the teachers

completed a measure of their social competence.Based on theory (e.g., Davies & Cummings, 1994) and previous research (e.g.,

Gottman & Katz, 1989; Katz & Gottman, 1995), we hypothesized that IPC would benegatively related to the amount of peer interaction and positively related to problemswith peers. In addition, theory (e.g., Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997) and research (e.g.,Eisenberg et al., 2004; Lengua et al., 2000) led to the prediction that the hypothesizedrelations between IPC and peer relations would be particularly strong for children lowin effortful control and those low in positive emotionality. In contrast, we expectedhigh effortful control and high positive emotionality to at least partially buffer childrenfrom the negative effects of IPC. We also expected gender to moderate the associations

between IPC and peer relations such that IPC would be negatively related to amount ofpeer interaction, particularly for girls, but more strongly positively related to problem-atic relations for boys than for girls.

Method

Participants

Sixty-two preschoolers from two-parent households (32 boys and 30 girls; ageM=4.70 years, SD =1.01 years, range =3.006.67 years) and their mothers partici-

pated in the present study. To recruit the participants, the first author spoke withmothers at five day care facilities as they picked up their children.1 After beinginformed about the study, approximately 80 percent of the mothers of children withinthe age range of interest agreed to participate and provided permission for their




6/23

childrens participation. Approximately 50 percent of the mothers who signed upreturned their questionnaire packets that included the IPC measures. The majority ofmothers were married to the childs biological father (84 percent), although 16 percentwere married to a stepfather. The children were predominately Caucasian (76 percent)and the remaining children were Native American (5 percent), African-American (3

percent), Latino (2 percent), Asian (2 percent) and Other or Mixed (12 percent). Themean income of the childrens households was $72,028 (SD =$39,993) and the meaneducation levels were 14.82 years (SD =2.03 years) for the mothers and 15.02 years(SD =2.74 years) for the fathers.

Procedure

To assess the childrens peer interactions, trained research assistants conducted focalindividual time sampling observations (i.e., each child in a class is observed in a

random order for a given time period Shantz & Hobart [1989] of childrens naturallyoccurring free play in their classrooms and in the playground when they were outsideat their day care center. The observers had a list of the participants in the class andrandomly chose a child to observe for 30 seconds. Multiple observations of each child(number of observations M =30.60,SD =1.66) were conducted daily over the courseof several weeks at various times of the day. Because the childrens amount of peerinteraction was coded, the observers watched the children regardless of whether theywere by themselves or interacting with other children. To assess inter-rater reliability,two observers independently observed the same child and coded the observationalvariables for 34 percent of the total number of observations.

Approximately halfway through the observation data collection period, the motherscompleted packets consisting of the IPC questionnaires and a demographic sheet.When the mothers packets were returned, they were paid $5 as partial compensationfor their participation. Additionally, the teachers who knew the children best completedmeasures of their temperament and social competence and were paid $5 for each childquestionnaire that they completed.

Amount of Peer Interaction

The observers coded the amount of peer interaction in which children engagedduring each observation on a five-point scale (1 =no peer interaction to 5 =active

physical/verbal exchange for virtually all of the observation), inter-raterr (638) =.96, p


7/23

Problematic Peer Relations

To assess the childrens problematic peer relations, the observers coded the level oftheir hostility with peers, the degree of negative affect they expressed with peers andthe frequency with which they provoked their peers. In addition, the teachers com-

pleted a questionnaire assessing the childrens social competence.

Hostility with Peers. Following each observation that involved some peer interaction(i.e., an amount of peer interaction rating greater than 1; 71 percent of total observa-tions), observers coded the degree of the childs hostility toward peers using a five-point scale (1 =very low hostility to 5 =very high hostility) adapted from Fabes,Eisenberg, Jones, Smith, Guthrie, Poulin et al. (1999), inter-rater r (452) =85,

p


8/23

initiated the provocation. The system used to code provoking incidents has beenused before in research on preschoolers peer relations (Murphy & David, 2001).Because the participants did not all have equal numbers of observations, the rate ofprovoking events was calculated for each child (i.e., total number of provokingincidents divided by total number of observations involving some peer interaction;

M =.07, SD =.09) and used as a measure of provoking incidents in subsequentanalyses.

Social Competence with Peers. The teachers completed an adapted version of thesocial competence subscale from Harters (1982) perceived competence scale forchildren. Although this questionnaire was originally designed as a self-report measurefor school-aged children, it has been adapted and used in several studies examiningteachers ratings of young childrens peer relations (e.g., Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al.,1997; Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Murphy, Guthrie & Jones, 1997). The adaptedversion used in the present study contained seven items (a = .86) that assessed thechildrens popularity with peers and their overall social skills. Each item contained twoopposing statements (e.g., This child finds it hard to make friends vs. For this child,its pretty easy to make friends) and the teachers responded by using Harters four-point response scale (i.e., they selected the statement that best described the child beingrated and then indicated if the item was sort of or really true of the child). Higherscores on this scale reflected higher levels of social competence.

Data Reduction. Scores from the four measures reflecting the quality of childrenspeer relations were subjected to a principal components factor analysis, which revealed

one factor with the following loadings: hostility (.88), negative affect (.62), provokingincidents (.74) and social competence (-.54).2 Thus, the social competence scores werereversed and scores from the four measures were standardized and averaged to createa problematic peer relations composite that was used in subsequent analyses; higherscores on this composite reflected higher levels of problematic relations.

Interparental Conflict

To assess destructive IPC, the mothers were asked to complete two subscales from theconflict and problem-solving scales (CPS) (Kerig, 1996) based on their interactions

with their marital partner. The CPS has been shown to be a reliable and valid measureof IPC when completed by mothers (Kerig, 1996). The frequency and verbal aggres-sion scales were used as they reflect aspects of IPC that have been found to bedestructive for childrens adjustment (see Cummings & Davies, 2002 for a review).The two items on the frequency scale assessed how often parents have engaged inminor (e.g., spats) and major (e.g., big fights) conflicts over the past year and wereanswered on a six-point scale (1 =once a year or less to 6 =just about every day), r(60) =.69,p


9/23

Temperament

To assess child temperament, the teachers completed subscales from the child behaviorquestionnaire (CBQ) (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey & Fisher, 2001) and the reviseddimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R) (Windle & Lerner, 1986). The CBQ and

DOTS-R have been established as reliable and valid measures of child temperament(Rothbart et al., 2001; Windle & Lerner, 1986).

Effortful Control. Based on previous research (Ahadi, Rothbart & Ye, 1993; Rothbartet al., 2001), effortful control was assessed using the following subscales from theCBQ: (1) attentional focusing (nine items; a =.77; e.g., When drawing or coloring ina book, shows strong concentration); (2) inhibitory control (13 items; a =.93; e.g., Isgood at following instructions); (3) low intensity pleasure (13 items; a =.83; e.g.,Enjoys just sitting quietly in the sunshine) and (4) perceptual sensitivity (12 items;a =

.72; e.g., Seems to listen to even quiet sounds). For all subscales on the CBQ, theteachers decided whether each statement is true or untrue of the child being ratedwithin the past six months and made ratings on a seven-point scale (1 =extremelyuntrue of this childto 7 =extremely true of this child).

Positive Emotionality. To assess positive emotionality, the teachers completed thesmiling and laughter subscale of the CBQ (13 items; a =.85; e.g., Laughs a lot at jokesand silly happenings) and the mood quality subscale of the DOTS-R (seven items;a =.90; e.g., This childs mood is generally cheerful). For the mood quality scale, theteachers were instructed to decide how true or false each statement is regarding the child

and to respond using a four-point scale (1 =usually falseto 4 =usually true).

Data Reduction. Scores from the six temperament scales were subjected to a prin-cipal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation, which revealed two factorswith the following loadings: (1) attentional focusing (.86), inhibitory control (.90),low intensity pleasure (.73) and perceptual sensitivity (.56) and (2) smiling andlaughter (.92) and mood quality (.91). Thus, the scores loading onto the first factorwere averaged to form an effortful control composite that was used in subsequentanalyses. Higher scores on this composite reflected higher levels of effortful control.Scores loading onto the second factor came from two questionnaires with differentscales and so scores from these subscales were standardized and averaged to createa positive emotionality composite that was used in subsequent analyses; higherscores on this composite indicated higher positive emotionality. The effortful controland positive emotionality composite scores were not significantly correlated,r (60) =.24, p >.05.

Results

Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine the relations between age and the

major variables, gender differences and the relations between IPC and the othervariables. Regression analyses assessing the prediction of preschoolers peer relationsby IPC, temperament and gender followed the preliminary analyses. Means and stan-dard deviations for the major variables are presented in Table 1.




10/23


11/23

Relations between Destructive IPC and the Other Variables

Contrary to expectations, destructive IPC was not significantly correlated with theamount of peer interaction and problematic peer relations, rs (60) = .08 and -.04,

p >.05, respectively. IPC also was unrelated to effortful control and positive emotion-

ality, rs (60) =.05 and .13, p >.05, respectively.

Regression Analyses Predicting Peer Relations

To assess the main effects of IPC, temperament and gender, as well as the moder-ating effects of temperament and gender, we conducted separate multiple regressionanalyses to predict the two criterion variables reflecting childrens peer relations: theamount of interaction and problematic peer relations. Following the recommendationof Aiken and West (1991), predictor variables were entered hierarchically in thefollowing order for each analysis: (1) the main effects of IPC, effortful control,

positive emotionality and gender and (2) the two-way interactions between IPC andeffortful control, between IPC and positive emotionality, and between IPC andgender (IPC and positive emotionality scores were already in standardized formand effortful control was centered before its interaction term was created). Thishierarchical order of entry allowed for the examination of whether the interactionspredicted significant variance in peer relations above and beyond the varianceaccounted for by the main effects. The three-way interactions between the predictors(i.e., between IPC, effortful control and gender; between IPC, effortful control andpositive emotionality and between IPC, positive emotionality and gender) and thefour-way interaction (i.e., between IPC, effortful control, positive emotionality and

gender) were initially entered on the third and fourth steps of each analysis, respec-tively. However, none of these interactions were significant and so they were droppedfrom all analyses.

Significant two-way interactions were plotted and tested using Aiken and Wests(1991) procedures for assessing and mapping interactions in regression. Specifically,for two-way interactions between IPC and temperament, the simple regression linespredicting the criterion variable from IPC were plotted for low (-1 SD) and high(+1SD) values of the moderating variable. For interactions between IPC and gender,the simple regression lines were plotted for boys and girls. In each case, the simpleslopes were examined to determine if they differed significantly from zero.

Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction. Results from the regression analysis pre-dicting amount of peer interaction are presented in Table 2. The main effects did notproduce a significant change in R2 on the first step and none of the individual betaswere significant. On the second step, the two-way interactions as a block significantlypredicted amount. Specifically, a significant interaction between IPC and effortfulcontrol indicated that IPC was negatively related to amount of peer interaction forchildren low in effortful control but positively related to amount for those high ineffortful control (see Figure 1; the slopes for low and high effortful control were -.21and .25, p


12/23

Prediction of Problematic Peer Relations. Table 2 shows the results of the regressionanalysis predicting problematic peer relations. The main effects entered as a block onthe first step produced a significant change in R2. However, the only significantindividual predictor was effortful control, as high levels of effortful control wereassociated with low levels of problematic peer relations. On the second step, thetwo-way interactions as a block significantly contributed to prediction. Specifically, asignificant interaction between IPC and effortful control indicated that IPC was posi-tively related to problems for children low in effortful control but negatively related toproblems for those high in effortful control (see Figure 3; the slopes for low and higheffortful control were .28 and -.34, ps


13/23

directions for children low and high in effortful control. Specifically, IPC was nega-tively related to the amount of peer interaction and positively related to problematicrelations for children low in effortful control but positively related to amount ofinteraction and negatively related to problems for those high in effortful control.Gender also moderated the associations between IPC and peer relations, as higher IPCwas related to a lower amount of interaction for girls but associated with a higheramount for boys. Thus, findings highlight the importance of considering intrapersonal

attributes as sources of individual differences when examining the role of IPC in thedevelopment of peer relations.

Consistent with expectations, preschoolers low in effortful control seemed to beparticularly vulnerable to the effects of IPC on their peer relations. For these children,high IPC was associated with low levels of interaction and high levels of problems withpeers. Children low in regulation become easily overaroused by their own emotionalreactions during stressful situations, which commonly leads to personal distress and afocus on the self rather than others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992). Further, individualswho are low in dispositional regulation are particularly likely to become sensitized tonegative interactions following high levels of IPC exposure (David & Murphy, 2004)

and tend to have relatively problematic relations with peers in general (e.g., Eisenberg,Fabes, Bernzweig, Karbon, Poulin & Hanish, 1993; Fabes et al., 1999). Thus, pre-schoolers who are low in effortful control and come from high conflict homes are likelyto become overwhelmed by their own emotions during exposure to negative

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

hgiHmuideMwoL

Destructive IPC

Amountofpeerinteraction

Low effortful control

High effortful control

Figure 1. Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction by IPC and Effortful Control.

Note: IPC =interparental conflict.




14/23

interactions, both at home and with peers, which can contribute to negative interpre-tations and assessments of social situations and result in hostile interactions with peers(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000).

Further, although the present findings do not determine whether preschoolers lowin effortful control purposely avoid other children or if they have low levels ofinteraction because they are rejected based on their hostile responses, the resultsnevertheless indicate that they do engage in relatively low amounts of peer interac-

tion. Withdrawing from peers can lead to subsequent problems as they are likely tobe missing out on fully developing the social and cognitive skills that advance in thecontext of peer interactions and play (Rubin et al., 1998). Future research shouldfocus on the nature of poorly regulated childrens peer relations in more detail toascertain if they are particularly prone to internalizing or externalizing symptoms inthe context of IPC. Although adjustment problems were not directly assessed in thepresent study, the findings suggest that they may be at risk for both types of prob-lems as they interacted less and had more problems with their peers than otherchildren. Nevertheless, the factors and processes that determine their vulnerability tospecific types of adjustment problems remain unclear.

In contrast, high effortful control seemed to foster childrens abilities to maintainrelatively constructive peer relations at high levels of IPC. Effortful control involvesthe abilities to voluntarily regulate attention, emotion and behaviors and cognitions thatare emotion-related as well as those that are unrelated to emotions (Derryberry &

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

hgiHwoL

Destructive IPC

Amountofpeerinteraction

Girls

Boys

Figure 2. Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction by IPC and Gender.





15/23

Rothbart, 1997; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Emotion regulationabilities are believed to influence what individuals notice about social situations andthe meanings they attribute to them (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Although youngchildren in general tend to focus on immediate concerns regarding their own safety andarousal during IPC (Grych & Cardoza-Fernandes, 2001), preschoolers high in effortfulcontrol may be able to disengage from environmental threats and enhance positiverather than negative aspects of stressful situations such as IPC. Thus, their regulatory

abilities likely allow them to evaluate their parents conflicts from a more detached andless emotional perspective, fostering empathy in the form of sympathy rather than afocus on their own emotions (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1995; Posner & Rothbart, 2000).Moreover, although they are likely to experience sympathy in response to IPC, childrenhigh in effortful control are unlikely to become directly involved in their parentsconflicts. Childrens emotional reactivity and behavioral dysregulation in response toIPC are positively related to their involvement in their parents conflicts (Davies,Forman, Rasi & Stevens, 2002), suggesting that children with difficulties in regulatingtheir reactivity and behavior (i.e., those low in effortful control), rather than those whoare able to effectively regulate their reactions, are particularly likely to become emo-

tionally overwhelmed and enmeshed in their parents quarrels. In contrast, experienc-ing sympathy rather than personal distress may lead children high in effortful controlto focus on their parents emotions and on the conflict outcomes (e.g., parents inter-actions immediately following conflict), which may result in a greater awareness of the

.1

.8

.6

.4

.2

.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

.1

hgiHmuideMwoL

Destructive IPC

Problematicpeerrelations

Low effortful control

High effortful control

Figure 3. Prediction of Problematic Peer Relations by IPC and Effortful Control.





16/23

disruptiveness of negative interactions as the preschoolers are able to correctly identifyothers emotions and the situations that cause negative emotions (Barden, Zelko,Duncan & Masters, 1980; Fabes, Eisenberg, Nyman & Michealieu, 1991). Thus,preschoolers high in effortful control may be especially motivated to avoid negativeexchanges and maintain positive interactions in their own relationships.

Interestingly, rather than being unrelated to peer relations, high IPC was associatedwith more frequent peer interactions and fewer problems with peers for children highin effortful control. Parke et al. (2001) suggested that some children exposed todestructive IPC may develop compensatory relationships as a way of avoiding conflictsand angry situations. Some findings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancyand Childhood (Dunn, Deater-Deckard, Pickering, OConnor, Golding & the ALSPACStudy Team, 1998) support this idea, as motherpartner hostility significantly predictedfriendliness between siblings in early childhood. Although the factors promoting thedevelopment of these forms of relationships are not well understood, it is children highin effortful control who are likely to be capable of developing compensatory relation-

ships. These children are effective at approaching situations in the face of punishmentand avoiding situations in the face of immediate cues for reward (Eisenberg, 2002)such that they may be particularly good at shifting their attention away from rewardingfeatures of aggression as well as from negative cues related to anger (Posner &Rothbart, 2000), which is likely to lead to constructive behavior during peer interac-tions. Moreover, children high in effortful control who are from high conflict homesmay be particularly selective when choosing the peers with whom they interact. Thatis, their experiences with IPC may lead them to seek out and play with peers whotypically play constructively and do not engage in problematic behavior themselves.Thus, good regulatory skills seem to allow these children to circumvent the harmful

effects of IPC by developing compensatory relationships with peers that includerelatively low levels of problems.

Further, engaging in frequent peer interactions that are relatively low in problems islikely to facilitate overall adjustment. Children who behave in a prosocial manner withpeers tend to have more friends than other children, which contributes to their subse-quent peer acceptance, psychological adjustment and academic success (see Rubinet al., 1998 for a review). Moreover, although peer relations were examined as anoutcome in the present study, the development of constructive compensatory relation-ships with peers may buffer children from the effects of IPC (Parke et al., 2001;Wasserstein & La Greca, 1996), which may further contribute to the resiliency of

children high in effortful control. Nevertheless, it is important to note that evenrelatively high scores on the IPC measures in the present study were not particularlyhigh in absolute terms (for frequency,M =7.35,SD =3.27 on a 318 scale; for verbalaggression, M =1.42, SD = .57 on a 03 scale). Thus, exposure to moderately highlevels of IPC may be somewhat beneficial for children who can effectively modulatetheir own arousal and attention, as it may provide opportunities to learn about negativeemotions and differences of opinion. However, other researchers have found somewhathigher levels of destructive IPC in community samples (e.g., El-Sheikh et al., 2001;Kerig, 1996) and levels of destructive IPC are significantly higher in clinical samples(King, Radpour, Naylor, Segal & Jouriles, 1995). Consequently, further research is

needed to examine the extent to which effortful control buffers children from theimpact of very high levels of conflict, as their regulatory abilities seem to fosteradjustment in the context of moderately high levels of IPC but the benefits of effortfulcontrol in the context of more severe IPC remain unclear.




17/23

Contrary to expectations, positive emotionality did not moderate the relationsbetween IPC and childrens peer relations. Although children high in positive emo-tionality may focus on positive aspects of the environment and maintain a positiveoutlook during stressful situations (Lengua, 2002), their abilities to regulate attentionand negative emotional arousal in the context of IPC and with peers may be more

important for determining the effects of IPC on peer relations. Frequently experiencinghigh levels of positive affect may not help children maintain a low level of arousalduring IPC, whereas good regulatory abilities allow children to modulate their reac-tivity so that they can focus on constructive reactions to stressful situations such asIPC. Similarly, the present findings suggest that low levels of positive emotionality maynot contribute to negative effects of IPC as long as the children can effectively regulatetheir emotional reactions to IPC. Nonetheless, because previous research suggests thatpositive emotionality plays a role in moderating the relations between family experi-ences and adjustment (Lengua et al., 2000) and research on the protective function ofpositive emotionality is scarce (Lengua, 2002), further work is needed to fully examine

the role that positive emotionality plays in the context of IPC.The findings also indicated that gender moderated the relations between IPC and the

preschoolersamount of peer interaction. Specifically, IPC was negatively related to theamount of interaction for girls but positively related to the amount for boys. Althoughconceptual explanations of the processes underlying gender differences in the contextof IPC are in the early stages of development (Davies & Lindsay, 2001), someresearchers believe that gender differences in socialization are likely to result in thedevelopment of dispositions reflecting agency and self-interest in boys and communionand interpersonal connectedness in girls (see Ruble & Martin, 1998). Therefore, boysmay be particularly focused on themselves during exposure to IPC, whereas girls may

be especially sensitive to the overall quality of relationships and the implications thatconflicts have for relationships. Indeed, research suggests that young girls are moresensitive to characteristics of hypothetical peer conflict such as conflict intensity(David, Murphy, Naylor & Stonecipher, 2004) and inter-adult conflict such as resolu-tion (El-Sheikh et al., 1996) than are young boys.

Girls greater sensitivity to the harmful effects of IPC may lead to self-blame,perceived threat and distress in response to IPC (see Davies & Lindsay, 2001),which are likely to result in withdrawing from high levels of involvement with peers(Cummings & Davies, 1994), perhaps as a way of avoiding negative interactions andarousal. Withdrawing from peers may lead to later difficulties with peers, as children

from discordant homes who play at low levels of involvement with peers may not learnthe complex interaction skills that are necessary for successful peer interactions(Gottman & Katz, 1989; Grych & Fincham, 1990). In addition, preschool childrenclassified as socially reticent (i.e., children who stand back from groups but carefullywatch the activities of others) are rated as particularly high on internalizing problems(Henderson et al., 2004), which girls are especially vulnerable to in the context of IPC(see Cummings & Davies, 1994, 2002). Thus, a developmental trajectory towardinternalizing problems for girls from high conflict homes may begin with withdrawingfrom peers during early childhood, although additional research is needed to examinethe mediating role of social withdrawal in the relations between IPC and the develop-

ment of internalizing problems.In contrast, preschool boys from high conflict homes may be particularly likely toseek out peers as a source of comfort by interacting with them more than boys fromlow conflict homes because young boys generally are more assertive and physically




18/23

active than are young girls (Eaton & Enns, 1986; Ruble & Martin, 1998) and theytend to manifest their reactions to interadult anger behaviorally (El-Sheikh, 1994).Furthermore, boys from discordant families may seek out high levels of peer inter-action because boys spend more time in peer groups than do girls, who tend to spendtime with one or two other children (Archer, 1992; Benenson, Apostoleris & Parnass,

1997) and may have more peers available to them who can serve as sources ofcompanionship. However, it is important to note that in the present study the prob-lematic peer relations of the boys did not vary as a function of IPC; thus, if youngboys are seeking out their peers as sources of distraction and support, it is unclearwhether they are successful in their attempts to engage in positive peer interactionsto offset the negativity they witness at home. Future research should assess theextent to which children from high conflict homes, particularly boys, seek out peersas sources of comfort, and the factors that contribute to the protective role of peersin the context of IPC.

Some limitations of the present study warrant discussion. Although the observa-

tions and teacher ratings in the present study provided valuable information regard-ing young childrens everyday functioning with various peers, there are severalvariables pertaining to peer relations that were not assessed and require investigation.Specifically, Parke et al. (2001) highlight the importance of studying the relationsbetween specific IPC tactics displayed in the home and childrens conflict resolutionstrategies with peers, as it is likely that IPC influences childrens repertoire of con-flict tactics and the way they approach conflict resolution in their own, age-appropriate relationships (Dadds, Atkinson, Turner, Blums & Lendich, 1999;Kitzmann & Cohen, 2003). Indeed, parents reports of destructive IPC are related toyoung childrens conflict strategies in simulated peer conflicts (Du Rocher Schudlich

et al., 2004), suggesting the importance of examining the relations between IPC andchildrens actual peer conflicts.

Moreover, although the children interacted with various peers during the observa-tions, it is possible that they chose to interact with their friends more often than withother children. Research indicating that children behave more positively with theirfriends than with other peers (see Laursen, Hartup & Koplas, 1996; Rubin et al., 1998,for reviews) suggests that children from high conflict homes may be particularly likelyto evidence disruptions in interactions with non-friends. Thus, if children did play withfriends more often than with other peers, then the relations between IPC and thechildrens problematic peer interactions may have been attenuated and underestimated

the negative impact of IPC on their social competence. Despite this possibility, thefindings revealed associations between high IPC and infrequent and problematic peerinteractions for children low in effortful control, suggesting that these children areparticularly vulnerable to disturbances in their relations with peers. Nevertheless,future research should examine the extent to which the associations between IPC andpeer relations vary as a function of relationship.

Furthermore, given that the data are correlational, it is difficult to draw causalconclusions regarding the ways in which temperament and gender moderate the rela-tions between IPC and childrens peer relations. The developmental models are likelyto be complex. Although aspects of temperament such as effortful control can influence

learning processes, interpretations and selections of situations, and elicitation of reac-tions from others (Rothbart & Bates, 1998), environmental factors can also contributeto the development of dispositional tendencies (Caspi, 1998). Indeed, Davies andCummings (1994) asserted that consistent exposure to destructive IPC may contribute




19/23

to the development of low emotion regulation and Eisenberg et al. (2004) noted thatchildren can learn methods of controlling their emotion, attention and behavior thatfoster resilience. The fit of dispositional characteristics with environmental factorsviewed as an important contributor to developmental outcomes (Rothbart & Bates,1998). Thus, various pathways are likely across development and further research is

needed to examine the processes by which temperament and gender moderate therelations between family experiences and social development.

In conclusion, the present study is one of the first to examine the relations of IPC toyoung childrens naturally occurring peer relations as a function of temperament andgender. These findings add to a growing body of research pertaining to the influence ofIPC on social development by demonstrating that IPC is differentially related to peerrelations for preschoolers varying in effortful control and for boys and girls. Althoughit frequently has been shown that low effortful control is related to negative outcomes,relatively little is known about the implications of high effortful control for behavior(Murray & Kochanska, 2002). The present findings suggest that effortful control plays

a significant role in determining the effects of destructive IPC and support the hypoth-esis that dispositional regulation fosters resiliency in the face of adversity (Eisenberget al., 2004; Eisenberg, Guthrie et al., 1997). Given that childhood peer relations haveimportant implications for long-term adjustment (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Parker& Asher, 1987), the continued pursuit of identifying variables that interact with IPC incontributing to the development of peer relations is an important task for researchersseeking to ascertain which children are most resilient or vulnerable in high conflicthomes.

ReferencesAhadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. M. (1993). Childrens temperament in the US and

China: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality,7, 359377.Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and organization. In H. McGurk (Ed.),

Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 3161). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Barden, R. C., Zelko, F. A., Duncan, S. W., & Masters, J. C. (1980). Childrens consensualknowledge about the experiential determinants of emotion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,39, 968976.

Benenson, J. F., Apostoleris, N. H., & Parnass, J. (1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic andgroup interaction.Developmental Psychology,33, 538543.

Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life-course. In W. Damon (Series ed.), &N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and per-sonality development(5th ed.), pp. 311388. New York: Wiley.

Cookston, J. T., Harrist, A. W., & Ainslie, R. C. (2003). Affiliative and instrumental maritaldiscord, mothers negative affect, and childrens negative interactions with unfamiliar peers.Journal of Child and Family Studies,12, 185200.

Cummings, E. M. (1987). Coping with background anger in early childhood. Child Develop-ment,58, 976984.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of familydispute and resolution. New York: Guilford.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recentadvances and emerging themes in process-oriented research.Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry,43, 3163.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003). Childrens responses toeveryday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development,74, 19181929.




20/23

Dadds, M. R., Atkinson, E., Turner, C., Blums, G. J., & Lendich, B. (1999). Family conflict andchild adjustment: Evidence for a cognitive-contextual model of intergenerational transmis-sion.Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 194208.

David, K. M., & Murphy, B. C. (2004). Interparental conflict and late adolescents sensitizationto conflict: The moderating effects of emotional functioning and gender.Journal ofYouth andAdolescence,33, 187200.

David, K. M., Murphy, B. C., Naylor, J. M., & Stonecipher, K. M. (2004). The effects of conflictrole and intensity on preschoolers expectations about peer conflict.International Journal of Behavioral Development,28, 508517.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotionalsecurity hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin,116, 387411.

Davies, P. T., & Forman, E. M. (2002). Childrens patterns of preserving emotional security inthe interparental subsystem. Child Development,73, 18801903.

Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M., Rasi, J. A., & Stevens, K. I. (2002). Assessing childrens emotionalsecurity in the interparental relationship: The security in the interparental subsystem scales.Child Development,73, 544562.

Davies, P. T., & Lindsay, L. L. (2001). Does gender moderate the effects of marital conflict onchildren? In J. H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child develop-

ment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 6497). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Davies, P. T., & Windle, M. (2001). Interparental discord and adolescent adjustment trajectories:The potentiating and protective role of intrapersonal attributes. Child Development, 72,11631178.

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organizationof temperament.Development and Psychopathology,9, 633652.

Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Shamir, H., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital conflict, childrensrepresentations of family relationships, and childrens dispositions towards peer conflictstrategies.Social Development,13, 171192.

Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., OConnor, T., Golding, J., & the ALSPAC StudyTeam. (1998). Childrens adjustment and prosocial behaviour in step-, single-parent, and

non-stepfamily settings: Findings from a community study.Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry,39, 10831095.

Eaton, W. O., & Enns, L. R. (1986). Sex differences in human motor activity level. Psychologi-cal Bulletin,100, 1928.

Eisenberg, N. (2002). Emotion-related regulation and its relation to quality of social function-ing. In W. W. Hartup, & R. A. Weinberg (Eds.), Minnesota symposium of child psychology:Child psychology in retrospect and prospect(Vol.32, pp. 133171). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of socialcompetence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 14.Emotion and social behavior(pp. 119150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1995). The relation of young childrens vicarious emotionalresponding to social competence, regulation, and emotionality. Cognition and Emotion 9,

203228.Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). Therelations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers social skills and sociometric status.Child Development,64, 14181438.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., et al. (1997).Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of childrens social functioning from regula-tion and emotionality. Child Development,68, 642664.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., Holmgren, R., et al.(1997). The relations of regulation and emotionality to resiliency and competent socialfunctioning in elementary school children. Child Development,68, 367383.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., et al.(2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to childrens resiliency and adjust-

ment.Child Development,75, 2546.Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., Smith, C. L., Reiser, M., Shepard, S. A., et al. (2003).The relations of effortful control and ego control to childrens resiliency and social function-ing.Developmental Psychology, 39, 761776.




21/23

El-Sheikh, M. (1994). Childrens emotional and physiological responses to interadult angrybehavior: The role of history of interparental hostility.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-ogy,22, 661678.

El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E. M., & Reiter, S. (1996). Preschoolers responses to interadultconflict: The role of experimentally manipulated exposure to resolved and unresolved argu-ments.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,24, 665679.

El-Sheikh, M., Harger, J., & Whitson, S. M. (2001). Exposure to interparental conflict andchildrens adjustment and physical health: The moderating role of vagal tone. Child Devel-opment, 72, 16171636.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., et al. (1999). Regula-tion, emotionality, and preschoolers socially competent peer interactions. Child Develop-ment,70, 432442.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Nyman, M., & Michealieu, Q. (1991). Young childrens appraisalsof others spontaneous emotional reactions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 858866.

Farver, J. M., & Branstetter, W. H. (1994). Preschoolers prosocial responses to their peersdistress.Developmental Psychology,30, 334341.

Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Marital aggression, observed parentalhostility, and child behavior during triadic family interaction.Journal of Family Psychology,

11, 7689.Gottman, J. M. (1977). Toward a definition of social isolation in children. Child Development,

48, 513517.Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young childrens peer

interaction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373381.Grych, J. H., & Cardoza-Fernandes, S. (2001). Understanding the impact of interparental

conflict on children: The role of social cognitive processes. In J. H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham(Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application(pp. 157187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and childrens adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework.Psychological Bulletin,108, 267290.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children.Child Development,53, 8797.

Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Fox, N. A., & Rubin, K. H. (2004). Psychophysiological andbehavioral evidence for varying forms and functions of nonsocial behavior in preschoolers.Child Development, 75, 251263.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Patterns of marital interaction and childrens emotionaldevelopment. In R. D. Parke, & S. G. Kellam (Eds.),Exploring family relationships with othersocial contexts (pp. 4974). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1995). Marital interaction and child outcomes: A longitudinalstudy of mediating and moderating processes. In D. Cicchetti, & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Emotion,cognition, and representation (pp. 301342). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Buffering children from marital conflict and dissolution.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,26, 157171.

Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The

conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 454473.King, C. A., Radpour, L., Naylor, M. W., Segal, H. G., & Jouriles, E. N. (1995). Parents maritalfunctioning and adolescent psychopathology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,63, 749753.

Kitzmann, K. M., & Cohen, R. (2003). Parents versus childrens perceptions of interparentalconflict as predictors of childrens friendship quality.Journal of Social and Personal Rela-tionships, 20, 689700.

Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the deve-lopment of childrens psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74, 13441367.

Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W., & Koplas, A. L. (1996). Towards understanding peer conflict.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,42, 76102.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes andcognition in social information processing. Child Development,71, 107118.Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding

of childrens response to multiple risk. Child Development,73, 144161.




22/23

Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Wolchik, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999). Emotionalityand self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce. Development andPsychopathology,11, 1537.

Lengua, L. J., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (2000). The additive and interactiveeffects of parenting and temperament in predicting adjustment problems of children ofdivorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,29, 232244.

Lindsey, E. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Campbell, J., Frabutt, J. M., & Lamb, M. E. (2002).Marital conflict and boys peer relationships: The mediating role of motherson emotionalreciprocity.Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 466477.

Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2001). Interparental conflict, childrens socialcognitions, and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Family Psychol-ogy,15, 315333.

Murphy, B. C., & David, K. M. (2001, April).Non-escalated provocation vs. conflict: The roleof regulation and the provoking context. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to exter-nalizing and internalizing behaviors.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,30, 503514.

Parke, R. D., Kim, M., Flyr, M., McDowell, D. J., Simpkins, S. D., Killian, C. M., et al. (2001).

Managing marital conflict: Links with childrens peer relationships. In J. H. Grych, & F. D.Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and appli-cation(pp. 291314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Arelow-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin,102, 357389.

Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Develop-ment and Psychopathology,12, 427441.

Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, &M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood(pp. 187247). Oxford: Wiley.

Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,103, 5566.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in

childhood.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,40, 2139.Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of tempera-

ment at three to seven years: The childrens behavior questionnaire. Child Development,72,13941408.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality devel-opment(5th ed.), pp. 105176. New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.In W. Damon (Series ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.Social, emotional, and personality development(5th ed.), pp. 619700. New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulation,and preschoolers social adaptation.Development and Psychopathology, 7, 4962.

Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Series ed.), &N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and per-sonality development(5th ed.), pp. 9331016. New York: Wiley.

Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283305.Shantz, C. U., & Hobart, C. J. (1989). Social conflict and development. In T. J. Berndt, & G. W.

Ladd (Eds.),Peer relationships in child development(pp. 7194). New York: Wiley.Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links with

childrens sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,13, 598609.Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Losoya, S. H.

(2004). Prediction of childrens empathy-related responding from their effortful control andparents expressivity.Developmental Psychology,40, 911926.

Wasserstein, S. B., & La Greca, A. M. (1996). Can peer support buffer against behavioral

consequences of parental discord? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 177182.Windle, M., & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperamental individu-ality across the life span: The revised dimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R).Journalof Adolescent Research,1, 213230.




23/23

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the parents, teachers, administrators and children at La Petite and KinderCareas well as Kim Baird, Jazmine Coulter, Allison Doonkeen, Cassandra Gray, Sarah Kroll,Brandon Reed, Kristen Russell and Mark Uptegrove, who assisted with this study. In addition,the authors wish to express special thanks to David E. Bard who also assisted with this study.

Notes

1. The five day care facilities were all similar in number of classrooms, teachers and children. Moreover,multivariate analyses failed to reveal significant differences between the day care centers on the majorvariables of interest, although two day care centers were significantly different from one another on mean

provoking incidents. This was likely because of the two highest scores on provoking incidents coming fromthe same day care centre.

2. Zero-order correlations revealed that hostility toward peers was positively associated with negativeaffect with peers as well as provoking incidents and negatively related to social competence, rs (60) = .41,.61 and-.32,ps

Documents

Temperament Intraparental Relations