Triadic Interaction among Newly Acquainted 2-year-oldspsych.cf.ac.uk/home2/hay/triadic2006.pdf · Triadic Interaction among Newly Acquainted 2-year-olds ... day care, nursery schools,

Triadic Interaction among Newly Acquainted2-year-oldsFumiko Ishikawa, Cambridge University, and Dale F. Hay, Cardiff University

Abstract

Are children as young as 2 years old able to interact in groups of three? The studyapplied the family triad model first introduced by Parke, Power, and Gottman (1979)to the case of peer interaction. In Experiment 1, the model was refined for use instudies of peer interaction and applied to an existing dataset of 16 triads of newlyacquainted 24-month-olds. In Experiment 2, the triadic coding system was furtherrefined and applied to 12 single-sex triads of newly acquainted 2-year-olds. The find-ings demonstrated that 2-year-olds are capable of triadic interaction although the pre-dominant interaction pattern in triads is still dyadic. Contrary to past reports, triadicinteraction was more likely to occur when the children were not in conflict. Both girlsand boys were capable of triadic interaction.

Keywords: triadic interaction; small groups; toddlers; peers

Participation in social groups is fundamental to human life. Social psychologicaltheory emphasizes group influence and the importance of group categories and identities (e.g., Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002). Children’s experiences in peergroups have important effects on their well-being and risk for mental health problems(for reviews, see Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hay, Payne & Chadwick, 2004).

Like older individuals, toddlers commonly spend time in social groups. At home,they are often surrounded by at least two individuals, namely, their parents and oneor more siblings. Grandparents and other relatives may also be present. Outside thefamily, toddlers are often exposed to other social contacts, with peers and peers’parents and siblings. Young children spend time together in mother–toddler groups,day care, nursery schools, and school settings. However, little is known about youngchildren’s abilities to interact in small peer groups.

Social interaction involves at least two participants where, for example, ‘individualA shows behaviour X to individual B and B responds with Y’ (Hinde, 1997). Thus,most definitions of social interaction require bidirectionality or reciprocity betweentwo individuals. Two-year-olds’ capacities for dyadic interaction with peers are welldocumented (for a review, see Hay et al., 2004). However, can toddlers interact withmore than one peer at a time? At the simplest level, can they engage in triadic interac-tion with their peers?

Correspondence should be addressed to Fumiko Ishikawa, c/o Professor Dale Hay, School of Psy-chology Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, Wales CF10 3AT. Email: [email protected]

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

146 Fumiko Ishikawa and Dale F. Hay

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Social Development, 15, 1, 2006

Developmental Studies

There have been relatively few studies of triadic interaction among young children.Hartup (1983) asserted that, in the pre-school years, most interactions between peersare dyadic. For example, even 5-year-olds show difficulties when asked to cooperatein groups of three (Peters & Torrance, 1973). When tested in triads, the extent to whichchildren engage in dyadic and triadic interaction is affected by age (5-year-oldsshowing more triadic engagement than 3-year-olds), gender (girls showing moretriadic interaction than boys), and the nature of the toys provided (McLoyd, Thomas& Warren, 1984). In that study, approximately 28 per cent of 3-year-olds’ interactionwas triadic, as opposed to 67 per cent of the interaction in the triads of 5-year-olds.In general, triadic interaction was likely to be verbally mediated, which suggests thatthe capacity to sustain triadic interaction may depend on verbal skills.

This finding implies that the ability to communicate with more than one person ata time will improve as toddlers acquire larger vocabularies and communicative fluencyduring the second and third years of life. For example, in a paradigm where two tod-dlers were tested with an adult experimenter, the rate with which acts were directedto two partners increased during the second year of life (Tremblay-Leveau & Nadel,1995). However, a rudimentary capacity for triadic interaction may pre-date language;qualitative observations of infants under the age of 1 year revealed that triadic inter-action could be observed among infant peers (Selby & Bradley, 2003).

Conflict as a Context for Triadic Interaction

Hartup (1983) argued that not only was dyadic interaction the most common way thatpre-school children related to their peers, it was also the optimal way; he suggestedthat ‘the smaller, more focused situation promotes greater intensity, vigour, and cohesiveness in child–child interaction’ (p. 124). Hartup’s claims about the positivefeatures of dyadic interaction receive some support from McGrew’s (1972) study of 3- and 4-year-old nursery school children, where triadic interaction tended to beassociated with conflict. In that sample, most interactions were dyadic. However, asomewhat smaller proportion (81 per cent) of agonistic/quasi-agonistic interactions,as opposed to non-agonistic ones (91 per cent), was dyadic. Apart from the 1.3 percent of interactions that involved four children or more, the remaining interactionswere triadic. Thus, it appeared that the capacity for triadic interaction was more likelyto be revealed in the context of conflict.

It is possible that the emotive quality of conflict makes it more likely that thirdparties to a dispute will get drawn in. For example, young children not uncommonlybecome involved in conflicts that begin between a parent and a sibling (e.g., Dunn & Munn, 1985; Hay, Vespo & Zahn-Waxler, 1998; Ross, Martin, Perlman, Smith,Blackmore & Hunter, 1996). Alternatively, it is possible that triadic interaction withpeers requires social skills that are fostered by more peaceable conditions. To testbetween these two alternatives, we examined whether conflict was indeed a settingthat fostered triadic interaction. These analyses extend current work on conflictbetween young peers, which has primarily focused on dyads; however, as Ross andConant (1992) pointed out, ‘The study of multiparty conflict . . . is essential for under-standing the place of conflict in children’s social lives’ (p. 179).

Toddler Triads 147


Gender Differences

Another factor that might affect a young child’s capacity for triadic interaction isgender. In general, studies of early peer interaction have revealed few gender dif-ferences (for reviews, see Hay et al., 2004; Keenan & Shaw, 1997). Over the pre-school years, however, preferences for members of one’s own sex emerge (Hartup,1983), and young children’s experiences of playing with same-sex peers are associ-ated with later measures of social competence (Fabes, Martin, Hanish, Anders &Madden-Derdich, 2003). It has long been thought that boys are more likely to playwith other boys in larger groups, whereas girls are likely to relate to peers in smallgroups and one-to-one relationships. It is not clear, however, whether this implies thatthere would be gender differences in triadic interaction.

Based on past studies, predictions about gender differences could be made in twoopposite directions. Five-year-old girls are more likely to engage in triadic interac-tion than are 5-year-old boys (McLoyd et al., 1984). However, experimental work hasshown that girls, as opposed to boys, show a strong preference for dyadic interaction(Benenson, 1993; Benenson, Apostolaris & Parnass, 1997). Thus, it is possible thatgirls might engage in either more or less triadic interaction than do boys. We testedthese alternative possibilities by comparing female and male triads.

Links with Triadic Interaction in the Family Setting

Although we know relatively little about 2-year-olds’ capacity for triadic interactionwith peers, toddlers’ abilities to relate to more than one person at a time are frequentlyrevealed in their relationships with parents and siblings (e.g., Barrett & Hinde, 1988;Barton & Tomasello, 1991; Belsky, Woodworth & Crnic, 1996; Dunn & Munn, 1985;Hay et al., 1998; Kreppner, Paulsen & Schultze, 1982; Miller, Volling & McElwain,2000; Ross et al., 1996). It is possible that the skills needed for triadic interactionappear sooner in the family setting. For example, by 19 months of age, toddlers canengage in triadic interaction and conversation with their mothers and siblings (Barton& Tomasello, 1991).

Family theorists have suggested ways of identifying qualitatively distinct patternsof triadic involvement among family members (Barrett & Hinde, 1988; Dunn, 1993;Kreppner et al., 1982). It is possible that the forms of triadic influence which occuramong family members are mirrored in toddlers’ interactions with their peers. Thus,the primary aim of the present research was to develop a way of describing triadicinteraction among young peers, based on a system originally developed for the studyof family triads (Parke et al., 1979). In Experiment 1, we reported an initial attemptto extend that system for the analysis of triadic interaction among 24-month-old peers.In Experiment 2, we applied this analytic scheme to a new sample of peer triads. Inthe second experiment, we also examined two factors that might affect the rate oftriadic interaction: first, whether the children were in conflict; and second, whether thetriads comprised girls or boys.

Experiment 1

The aim of Experiment 1 was to determine whether the model of triadic influencedeveloped by Parke et al. (1979) could be applied to 2-year-olds’ interaction withpeers. Analyses were conducted on an existing dataset collected in a study of



mixed-sex triads of newly acquainted peers, observed with their mothers in a labora-tory playroom (Caplan, Vespo, Pedersen & Hay, 1991; Hay, Castle, Stimson & Caplan,1991).

Influence Patterns in Triads

Two-move Sequences. Parke et al. (1979) focused on the concept of influence patternswithin families; in particular, they demonstrated how a parent influences the otherparent and their child. In a dyadic interaction, there are only two possible patterns ofinfluence: A can influence B, or B can influence A. However, the situation becomesmuch more complex if a third person enters into the interaction (Table 1). In the systemdeveloped by Parke et al. (1979), the primary influence source is the person who ini-tiates the first move in the interaction (e.g., ‘A’ might be a father, as depicted in theexample provided by Parke et al. (1979), which is presented in Table 1). The primaryrecipient is the member of the triad who is the recipient of that behaviour (‘B’ whomight be the mother or ‘C’ who might be the infant). The secondary influence sourceinitiates the second move (in Parke et al.’s (1979) example, this might be the mother,B, or the infant, C). Finally, the secondary recipient is the recipient of the secondmove.

Within this model, different types of influence patterns were identified. Direct inter-action occurs when A initiates an action towards B, who then returns some behaviourto A; in other words, interaction takes place within a dyad, and the third member ofthe group is not involved. For clarity’s sake, we refer to this pattern as dyadic through-out this article. Other influence patterns involve all members of the triad. Triadic pat-terns may be transitive, for example, where A initiates action towards B, who thendirects action towards C. Alternatively, they may be parallel, for example, where Ainitiates action towards B, and then C also directs some behaviour towards the samerecipient, B; or circular, for example, where A initiates an action towards B, and Cthen directs a behaviour back to the primary initiator A.

In the present study, we have recorded interaction amongst three peers, using anobservational coding system that comprises specific actions and reactions shown by

Table 1. Patterns of Social Influence in Triads (from Parke et al., 1979)

Preceding Interaction: Following Interaction: Move 2Move 1 (AB or AC) (BA or BC, CA or CB)

Influence Primary Secondary Influence Secondary Type of Source Recipient Source Recipient Influence

A Dyadic or directB C Transitive

A CircularB C B Parallel

A Dyadic or directC B Transitive

A CircularA C B C Parallel

Toddler Triads 149


any member of the group, in response to any other; the stream of actions and reac-tions can be divided into alternating moves within episodes of interaction (Hay et al.,1991). Thus, a two-move sequence can be any permutation of two choices from theset of six possible combinations of initiator and recipient {AÆB, BÆC, CÆA, BÆA,AÆC, CÆB}. It is instructive to place the set of four interaction patterns introducedby Parke et al. (1979) on to a 6 ¥ 6 transition matrix (Table 2).

Each of the four Parke et al. (1979) patterns corresponds to six cells of the matrix,accounting for 24 of the 36 cells altogether. It is then immediately obvious that theremaining 12 of the 36 cells in the matrix in Table 2 are unaccounted for. It is possi-ble to complete the matrix by adding two additional sequential patterns, each of whichaccounts for six of the remaining 12 cells. These are a repetitive pattern where, forexample, A directed a move to B and then did so again, and a new recipient patternwhere, for example, A directed a move to B and then followed that with a movedirected to C. In other words, in the context of a triad, a particular individual can eitherrepeat overtures to one recipient or switch attention to another recipient. The repeti-tive pattern might be seen as a triadic overture but, because neither recipient responds,it does not immediately result in social interaction.

The extended set of six patterns of dyadic, transitive, circular, parallel, repetitive,and new recipient covers all possible two-move sequences. Thus, in addition to beingmutually exclusive, the extended set of six patterns is exhaustive as well. The two addi-tional two-move patterns do not by themselves constitute interaction, but, in thecontext of a longer episode of interaction, they may have social meaning.

Three-move Sequences. Parke et al.’s (1979) coding scheme categorizes sequences oftwo consecutive moves. However, it is important to examine whether 2-year-olds cansustain longer sequences of triadic interaction. Thus, we have extended this analysisto examine sequences of three consecutive moves. Particularly salient to a study of

Table 2. An Extension of Parke et al.’s (1979) Model of Influence Patterns in Triads

Following Interaction

AÆB BÆC CÆA BÆA AÆC CÆB

AÆB Repetitive Transitive Circular Dyadic New ParallelRecipient

BÆC Circular Repetitive Transitive New Parallel DyadicRecipient

CÆA Transitive Circular Repetitive Parallel Dyadic NewRecipient

BÆA Dyadic New Parallel Repetitive Transitive CircularRecipient

AÆC New Parallel Dyadic Circular Repetitive TransitiveRecipient

CÆB Parallel Dyadic New Transitive Circular RepetitiveRecipient

Pre

cedi

ng I

nter

acti

on



triadic interaction is the fact that some of the possible three-move sequences involveeach of the three children initiating a move. This means that their involvement in thetriadic interaction extends beyond merely being the passive recipient of another child’sactions. A three-move sequence can be any permutation of three choices from the setof six possible combinations of initiator and recipient {AÆB, BÆC, CÆA, BÆA,AÆC, CÆB}, giving 63 or 216 possible permutations altogether.

Each cell of the resulting transition matrix represents a unique pattern for threesequences of three consecutive moves, so there are 36 three-move patterns altogether.It is clearly not sensible to give individual names to each of 36 three-move patterns.However, it is possible to assign meaningful names to the patterns grouped into cate-gories, based on the total number of children involved in the three-move interactionsequence, the number of children who are initiators of moves, and the number of chil-dren who are recipients of moves. The 36 three-move patterns can be grouped intoseven categories: monadic, dyadic, triadic2–1, triadic2–2, triadic2–3, triadic3–2, andtriadic3–3. The five triadic categories have names of the form triadici–r, where ‘i’ is thenumber of initiators (2 or 3) and ‘r’ is the number of recipients (1, 2, or 3). Table 3summarizes the seven categories of monadic, dyadic, triadic2–1, triadic2–2, triadic2–3,triadic3–2, and triadic3–3 sequences.

The first category, monadic, groups together the three-move patterns in which onlyone child attempts to initiate interaction. There are four three-move patterns in themonadic category, being the four possible two consecutive two-move pattern permu-tations of the two new patterns, repetitive, and new recipient. This is not coincidence;as with the repetitive and new recipient patterns of two-move sequences, one wouldonly expect the monadic pattern to occur in the context of a longer interaction episode.The second category, dyadic, comprises those three-move patterns in which two chil-dren interact, and each child initiates at least one of the three moves. The remainingfive categories, triadic, cover patterns in which all three children interact, and at leasttwo children initiate a move. (The case of three children being present, but only one child initiating behaviour, is categorized as monadic, as it does not qualify as interaction.)

Distinguishing five triadic categories is a useful theoretical exercise, but for esti-mating the amount of triadic interaction engaged in by 2-year-olds, a further simpli-fication is helpful. If one discards the number of recipients, then one can cut the

Table 3. Types of Influence Patterns in Three-move Sequences

Number of Number of Number Number Number 1st 2ndThree-move Three-move of of of Interaction Interaction

Categories Patterns Permutations Subjects Initiators Recipients Pattern Pattern

Monadic 4 24 2/3 1 1/2 R/N R/NDyadic 3 18 2 2 2 R/D R/DTriadic2–1 3 18 3 2 1 R/P R/PTriadic2–2 12 72 3 2 2 R/N/T/C/P R/N/T/C/PTriadic2–3 6 36 3 2 3 D/N/T/C D/N/T/CTriadic3–2 6 36 3 3 2 D/T/C/P D/T/C/PTriadic3–3 2 12 3 3 3 T/C T/C

Note: R, Repetitive; N, New Recipient; D, Dyadic; P, Parallel; C, Circular; T, Transitive.

Toddler Triads 151


number of triadic categories from five to two. Triadic2–1, triadic2–2, and triadic2–3 mergeto form triadic2, comprising those three-move patterns in which two children initiateinteractions, while the third child is involved only as a recipient. Triadic3–2 andtriadic3–3 merge to form triadic3, comprising those three-move patterns in which allthree children interact, and each child initiates one of the three moves. In summary,using the simplified set of four categories, possible three-move sequences can be characterized as monadic, dyadic, triadic with two initiators, and triadic with all threechildren initiating behaviour.

In sum, we seek to determine whether 2-year-old children engage in triadic interac-tion with newly acquainted peers. We ask whether the patterns of dyadic and triadicinfluence that are shown in family groups also occur amongst young peers.

Method

The Children

The original study entailed a comparison between 1- and 2-year-olds tested in groupsof three in a laboratory playroom. The children’s names were obtained from news-paper birth announcements. They resided in suburban communities in New York State.On average, 53.8 per cent of mothers and 56.3 per cent of fathers earned degreesbeyond secondary education. Only 31 per cent of mothers were in full- or part-timeemployment outside the home.

Observational records of the interactions of the 2-year-olds (N = 48) are used in thepresent study. In this subsample, the children’s mean age was 24.8 months (range: 23.2to 26.1). Half were female, and 40 (83 per cent) had siblings.

A letter describing the aims and procedures of the study was sent to the families.Appointments were made during a follow-up telephone call, with written consentobtained at the time of the observation. The participants were compensated for travelexpenses. The children were randomly assigned to groups differing in gender com-position, either containing two girls and a boy or two boys and a girl.

The Observational Setting

Each triad was observed with their primary caregivers (in all but one case the mother)in a brightly decorated, carpeted playroom; a one-way observation window was locatedalong one wall. The adults were given large cushions on which to sit. The toys pro-vided were randomly drawn from a pool of eight, including pull toys, airplanes, bricks,balls, stacking rings, dolls, phones, and plastic tubs. Two video cameras, each on apan-tilt unit, were installed in opposite corners of the room.

Procedure

The children were tested on two consecutive days. The original study compared thechildren’s interaction under conditions of scarce versus ample resources; therefore,triads were presented with either two or six toys, drawn randomly from the pool ofeight, on the first day of testing. Each triad was thus tested under both scarce andample conditions, in counterbalanced order.

Prior to the observational session, the caregivers had been greeted in three separatereception rooms and then escorted with their children to the playroom. They were



instructed to remain seated on the large cushions throughout the session, to interactnaturally with each other, and to allow their children to play freely with the toys andother children. The caregivers were asked not to intervene in the children’s play exceptin the event of possible physical harm. The children were then observed for 25 minutes.When each session was completed, the caregivers and children were escorted back tothe reception room. The same procedure was followed on the second day of testing.For this paper, the records from both days are used for the analysis of triadic interac-tion patterns.

Measures

A primary coder transcribed the video records using the Peer Interaction CodingScheme (PICS), which had been developed in a series of studies of early peer interaction analysed for the occurrence of social conflict and pro-social behaviour (Hay & Ross, 1982; Hay et al., 1991; Hay, Castle, Davies, Demetriou & Stimson,1999). In this scheme, which can be applied to dyadic and triadic settings, each child’sbehaviour is categorized with respect to 30 predetermined social actions and reactions(see Table 4). Each action is directed by one child to a peer. Actions sometimes involvean object that is either in dispute or being transferred to the peer’s possession. Reac-tions are categories of behaviour that depend on the peer’s prior action, for example,accepting a toy that has been offered. In general, the content of the interactions codedby the PICS pertains to the children’s mutual use of space and resources. Because ofthe actual content of the behavioural categories, some sequences of actions and reac-tions occur significantly more than others, whereas some sequences never occur (Ross& Hay, 1977).

Because different actions and reactions can occur simultaneously or in rapidsequence, the stream of interaction is parsed into alternating moves by each actor,which comprise episodes of moves by the different actors. An episode begins with thefirst action directed by one child to a peer and ends with the last move that precededa period of at least 30 seconds when no moves occurred. In some cases, an individualchild makes repeated overtures without a visible reaction from either peer. Actionsthat are separated by more than 3 seconds are parsed into separate moves. A sampletranscript of an episode of triadic interaction is shown in Table 5.

Agreement between the primary observer and an independent reliability observerwas obtained for 25 per cent of the sample. Because the identification of episodesentails event sampling, reliability is assessed through percentage agreement.Observers identified moves with 88 per cent agreement. Agreement was then calcu-lated with respect to the specific types of acts that occurred in the course of agreed-upon moves. Kappa coefficients for the various actions and reactions recorded in thePICS ranged from .79 to 1, with a mean of .89.

Moves were then categorized as active or minimal; a minimal move was the cate-gory of reaction where a recipient merely watched the initiator, rather than make anymore active movement, vocalization or gesture. Watching, defined as sustained visualregard of the peer, was distinguished from ‘no visible or audible reaction’. All otheractions and reactions were defined as active. Episodes were then considered to beactively triadic if each member of the triad directed at least one active move towardsor in response to a peer. Episodes were defined as minimally triadic if each memberof the triad engaged in at least one move during the episode, although the move mightonly constitute watching one of the other actors.

Toddler Triads 153


Table 4. Peer Interaction Coding Scheme Definitions

Initiations(Initiations are behaviours directed to the peers that can begin a sequence of

interaction. Some initiations involve the use of objects.)

(A) Initiations Directed to the Peer’s PersonApproach: Child locomotes (i.e., moves each leg at least once) towards the other

child.Lean: Child, whilst sitting, moves torso in direction of the other child.Reach towards peer: Child extends arm or hand towards the other child.Touch: Child uses hands, without force, to contact the other child.Other touch: Child contacts other child without force, using part of body other than

the hands.Bump: Child moves in an apparently non-intentional way so as to effect contact

with the other child.Give affection: Child directs conventional signs of affection such as hugs and kisses

to the other child.Face-to-face contact: Child brings face close to the other child’s face.Forceful contact: Child hits, pushes, pulls, bats at, or kicks other child, or hits the

other child with an object.Vocalise: Child produces non-distressed voiced sounds whilst looking at the other

child.Speak: Child directs distinguishable words towards the peer.

(B) Initiations that Involve the Use of ObjectsReach for peer’s object: Child extends hand or arm towards an object currently in

the other child’s hands or lap, or part of an array of objects with which the childis currently playing.

Contact peer’s object: Child touches object in the other child’s hands or lap, or partof an array with which the child is playing, without force.

Take peer’s object: Child picks up an object that (1) the other child had, but has putdown within the last 5 sec; (2) is part of an array with which the other child isplaying, or has played within the last 5 sec; or (3) is in the possession of the otherchild’s mother.

Non-forceful tugs: Child contacts an object the other child is currently holding andpulls it gently towards the self.

Forceful tugs: Child pulls forcefully on an object that the other child is holding,attempting to wrest it out of the other child’s possession.

Point out an object to the peer: Child extends hand with index finger extendedtowards an object, whilst looking at the other child.

Show object to peer: Child holds up an object towards the other child’s face whilstlooking at the other child.

Demonstrate object: Child manipulates an object while looking at the other child’sface.

Offer object: Child extends an object towards the other child’s hands or lap in sucha way that the other child is able to take it.

Teasing offer of object: Child extends an object towards the other child’s hands andthen withdraws it rapidly before the peer can take it.



Results

The Extent of Triadic Interaction

A total of 715 episodes of peer interaction was identified. These contained 5,281moves, of which 4,352 (82.4 per cent) were active. On average, there were 7.4 minimaland 6.1 active moves per episode. Of the 715 episodes, 193 (27 per cent) were foundto be triadic, with 130 (18 per cent) actively triadic.

Patterns of Triadic Influence

Two-move Sequences. The model of triadic influence used by Parke et al. (1979),including the additional categories of repetitive overtures and overtures to a new re-cipient, was applied to two-move sequences (see Table 5). Again, this was done first

Table 4. Continued

Pretend offer: Child offers an ‘invisible’ object to the other child or pretends to feedor give a drink to the other child. (Offers of real objects in the course of pretendplay are counted as literal offers.)

Give object: Child releases his or her own object directly into the other child’shands or lap.

Add object to array: Child releases his or her own object directly into an array oftoys with which the other child is playing.

Throw object towards the peer: Child releases an object forcefully in the peer’sgeneral direction.

Push/roll object: Child puts pressure on an object so that it moves or rolls towardsthe peer.

Reactions(Reactions are only shown in response to particular initiations.)

Watch: Child shows continued, extended visual regard of the peer following thepeer’s initiation. Note that we do not code all glances towards the peer but onlywatching in response to an active initiation.)

Withdraw physically from peer: Child pulls hands away, turns away, or leans backout of peer’s reach.

Move away from peer: Child locomotes in a direction away from the other child.Fuss: Child makes nonverbal voiced sound of protest, including whimpering,

whining, and so on.Protest: Child makes verbal statement of protest, such as ‘No’, ‘Mine’, and the like.Accept object: Child grasps an object being offered, given, thrown, rolled, or

pushed, and takes into own possession without the use of force.Play with accepted object: Child manipulates or otherwise plays with object just

accepted from the peer.Release object: Child lets go of an object he or she is holding in response to the

peer’s reach, contact, or tug.Withdraw object away from peer: Child pulls or otherwise moves an object out of

the other child’s reach.No reaction: Child makes no visible or audible reaction to the peer’s initiation.

Toddler Triads 155


Tab

le 5

.A

Sam

ple

Tra

nscr

ipt

of T

riad

ic I

nter

acti

on C

oded

usi

ng P

ICS

in E

xper

imen

t 1

Chi

ld A

Chi

ld B

Chi

ld C

Who

to

Who

mTw

o-m

ove

Patt

ern

Thr

ee-m

ove

Patt

ern

App

roac

h, d

emon

stra

te t

oy

BÆ

Cae

ropl

ane

to C

Wat

ch,

mov

e aw

ay

CÆ

BD

yadi

c: B

C–C

Bfr

om B

Bum

p C

BÆ

CD

yadi

c: C

B–B

CD

yadi

c:

BC

–CB

–BC

Wat

ch,

mov

e aw

ay

CÆ

BD

yadi

c: B

C–C

BD

yadi

c:fr

om B

CB

–BC

–CB

App

roac

h C

AÆ

CC

ircu

lar:

CB

–AC

Tri

adic

3

BC

–CB

–AC

Wat

ch,

dem

onst

rate

C

ÆA

Dya

dic:

AC

–CA

Tri

adic

2

pull

ing

plan

e to

AC

B–A

C–C

AW

atch

CA

ÆC

Dya

dic:

CA

–AC

Dya

dic:

AC

–CA

–AC

App

roac

h, d

emon

stra

te p

ulli

ng p

lane

BÆ

CPa

rall

el: A

C–B

CT

riad

ic3

to C

, sp

eak

‘See

, se

e th

is?’

CA

–AC

–BC

Wat

ch B

AÆ

BC

ircu

lar:

BC

–AB

Tri

adic

2

AC

–BC

–AB

Wat

ch,

appr

oach

BC

ÆB

Para

llel

: AB

–CB

Tri

adic

3

BC

–AB

–CB

Wat

ch C

, ap

proa

ch C

, sp

eak

‘See

, B

ÆC

Dya

dic:

CB

–BC

Tri

adic

3

see

a pl

ane,

see

?’A

B–C

B–B

CW

atch

BC

ÆB

Dya

dic:

BC

–CB

Dya

dic:

CB

–BC

–CB

App

roac

h,

AÆ

CC

ircu

lar:

CB

–AC

Tri

adic

3

dem

onst

rate

BC

–CB

–AC

pull

ing

cart

W

atch

AC

ÆA

Dya

dic:

AC

–CA

Tri

adic

2

to C

CB

–AC

–CA

PIC

S,

Peer

Int

erac

tion

Cod

ing

Sys

tem

.



with respect to minimal interaction, where a third actor might participate by watch-ing one of the others, and then for active interaction, where each actor used move-ments, gestures, or vocalizations.

Most of the minimal sequences (84 per cent) were dyadic, where a particular re-cipient responds to the original initiator (Figure 1a). Repetitive overtures by the ini-tiator occurred in 3.1 per cent of the sequences, whereas switching to a new recipientoccurred in only .6 per cent. Triadic interaction was observed in 12.4 per cent of thetwo-move sequences, with transitive influence the most common pattern and parallelinfluence the least common, c2

(2) = 23.81, p < .01.A slightly greater proportion of two-move sequences (13.7 per cent) were triadic

when only active moves were considered (Figure 1b). Once again, transitive influencewas most common and parallel influence least common, c2

(2) = 14.49, p < .01.

Dyadic84.0%

New recipient0.6%

Parallel3.0%

Repetitive3.1%Transitive

5.1%Circular4.3%

Circular5.1%

Transitive5.2% Repetitive

4.5%

Parallel3.4%

New recipient0.8%

Dyadic81.0%

Figure 1a. Interaction Patterns (Minimal) for Two-move Sequences (Study 1).

Figure 1b. Interaction Patterns (Active) for Two-move Sequences (Study 1).

Toddler Triads 157


Three-move Sequences. Combinations of two-move sequences were then examined toexamine possible triadic influence in sequences of three active moves (see Table 5).Again, most of the sequences of active moves were dyadic (77.4 per cent); monadicsequences occurred rarely (Figure 1c). The two different types of triadic sequences(those where all three 2-year-old children initiated action and those where two actorswere initiators but the other only a recipient) were about equally likely to occur, 50.2per cent involving two initiators and one recipient, and 49.8 per cent involving all three children as initiators. Taken together, over one-fifth of three-move sequences(22.6 per cent) were actively triadic.

Summary

The first experiment revealed that 2-year-old children, tested in mixed-sex triads, werecapable of triadic interaction. They showed similar patterns of triadic influence to thoseobserved in family interaction (Parke et al., 1979), with the transitive pattern beingmost common with respect to both minimal and active interaction. The second experi-ment was designed to replicate and extend these findings with a new cohort of toddlers.

Experiment 2

Our analysis of the existing dataset revealed that 2-year-old children were indeedcapable of engaging in active triadic interaction, although, as Hartup (1983) observed,most interaction was dyadic. The aim of the second study was to explore these issuesfurther by applying the model of triadic influence to a new sample of 2-year-old chil-dren, tested either in dyads or triads (Ishikawa, 2003). For this paper, we concentrateattention on those who were observed in triads.

Triadic3

11.2% Triadic2

11.4%

Dyadic & Monadic77.4%

Dyadic & Monadic

Triadic2

Triadic3

Figure 1c. Active Interaction for Three-move Sequence Categories (Study 1).



In addition to examining influence patterns in two- and three-move sequences, wealso examined the context of triadic influence, in terms of whether the interactioninvolved conflict. Previous research suggested that, when 2-year-old children interactin triads, as opposed to dyads, they are more likely to be showing agonistic behaviour(McGrew, 1972).

Finally, in the second experiment, we explored the possibility that girls and boysmight not be equally likely to engage in triadic interaction with unfamiliar peers. Aswe noted earlier, predictions about gender differences could be made in two oppositedirections; on the basis of past studies, girls might be more or less likely to engage intriadic interaction than boys. Thus, we compared triads of girls and triads of boys withrespect to two- and three-move triadic sequences in this experiment.

Method

The Children

Sixty children between 24 and 31 months old were recruited from parent-toddlergroups and nursery schools in and around Cambridge (Ishikawa, 2003). The boys andgirls were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, depending onwhether they met as dyads or triads. Thus, 24 children were allocated to 12 dyads (6girl-only and 6 boy-only dyads), and 36 children were allocated to 12 triads (6 girl-only and 6 boy-only triads). The members of each group had not met one another priorto the day of testing.

Permission to carry out the study was sought from individual head teachers andparents. The families willing to participate signed a consent form and provided theiraddresses and telephone numbers. Thirty girls and 30 boys meeting these criteria wererecruited, and they served as focal children in the sample. This paper concentratesattention on the 36 children who met in triads.

The 36 children’s mean age was 27 months (range: 24–31 months; SD: 2.19). Themajority of children (80 per cent) had siblings (M = 1.0, SD: .75). Most of the fami-lies (71 per cent) were white British, with most fathers’ occupations (88 per cent) atSkill Levels 3, ‘intermediate jobs ranging from craft to associate professional occu-pations’, and 4, ‘what are termed “professional” occupations and managerial positionsin corporate enterprises or national/local government’ (Elias, McKnight & Kinshott,1999).

The Observational Setting

The children and their mothers met in a carpeted and furnished laboratory observa-tion room designed to resemble a room set up for a mother-toddler group. The deco-ration was airy and bright, with posters on the walls. The furniture comprised a settee,a red child-sized table, two red child-sized chairs, three large cushions, and an alpha-betical rug. An observation booth with a one-way observation window mirror waslocated along one side of the room, with a door to the main playroom. There was alarge frosted-glass window high up in the centre of the opposite wall; and there wasan adult-level shelf, which contained additional toys and books to the right of thewindow. A set of Lego Primo and a set of Lego Duplo bricks were provided on thefloor; soft animal puppets were located on the settee; a doll was on the window sill;and four rattles, a soft ball (20 cm diameter), four soft cubes, two pull toys, and four

Toddler Triads 159


books were located on the adult-level shelf. The children were also provided with two biscuits each, placed on a single plastic plate, which in turn was placed on the redchild-sized table.

Procedure

The peer triads were observed within a social group that contained at least six people.The participants in the sessions were the focal children accompanied by their primarycaregivers, who were usually their mothers. Very young infant siblings accompaniednine of the 36 primary caregivers (25 per cent). The presence of the very young babyin the mother’s arms simulated what would normally happen at a mother-toddlergroup, and thus added to the external validity of the procedure. We reasoned that theinfant’s distress, if separated from the mother, might affect the mother’s behaviour withher older child and, therefore, create a more unnatural social situation.

At least two experimenters were present at each session. The participants weregreeted at the entrance to the observation laboratory and asked to sit down on thechairs in the corridor where they were asked to fill in their personal details and signthe consent forms. Meanwhile, another experimenter, with the consent of the care-givers, gave diluted juice to the children. Once the participants had completed theconsent forms, we invited the children and their caregivers into the observation room.We asked the participants to stay in the observation room for 25 minutes and do whatever they wished, and asked the caregivers not to intervene in the children’s play.However, we specifically instructed the caregivers to act swiftly in the event of anysituation occurring that could possibly be harmful to children.

Each session was recorded with a single video camera behind the one-way obser-vation window mirror. The door to the observation booth was left open to enable thechildren’s vocalizations to be recorded. A safety gate prevented the children fromentering the booth.

Measures

The Coding System. The primary coder transcribed the video records using the PICS,slightly modified from the version used in Experiment 1 (Hay et al., 1999). Movesand episodes were identified as in Experiment 1. The video records were transcribedon to coding sheets. Each move was transcribed on to a single row of the coding sheet.The start time for the move was entered into the first column labelled ‘Onset Time’.The move number within the episode was entered into the second column labelled‘Move’.

In the version of the coding system that was used in Experiment 1, moves couldhave been coded as occurring at the same time as other moves. This occurred rarely;only 3 per cent of moves were recorded as occurring simultaneously with other moves.An additional 3.7 per cent of moves were recorded as having two or more recipients.These two forms of co-occurrence complicate the use of Parke et al.’s (1979) methodfor analysing two- and three-move sequences. A critic might argue that the co-occur-rence of moves and the possibility of moves being directed to more than one recipi-ent might artificially overestimate the amount of triadic interaction that actuallyoccurred. As a result, in Experiment 2, we decided to disallow co-occurrence of ini-tiators and recipients. Thus, if two children were acting apparently simultaneously, theobserver had to judge who began to act first, and then code a separate move for each



child. Separate columns were used to record acts made by each child. The recipientsof moves made by each of the three children were recorded in separate columns.

The first author coded the video records of all observational sessions. Two inde-pendent observers coded 50 per cent of the sessions. On average, the observers

Table 6. A Qualitative Example of Triadic Influence Observed in Experiment 2

Whoto Two-move Three-move

Whom Pattern Pattern

Charles approaches Alex, reaching for Alex’s toy CÆA(C–A)

Alex protests, and tugs on a toy Charles is holding AÆC Dyadic:(A–C) CA–AC

Charles moves away from Alex, and releases the CÆA Dyadic: Dyadic:object to Alex (C–A) AC–CA CA–AC–CA

Alex releases the object (A–C) AÆC Dyadic: Dyadic:CA–AC AC–CA–AC

Charles watches Alex (C–A) CÆA Direct: Dyadic:AC–CA CA–AC–CA

Alex approaches Ben, bumps into Ben, and takes AÆB Transitive: Triadic2

an object from Ben (A–B) CA–AB AC–CA–ABBen approaches object, protests, and takes an BÆA Dyadic: Triadic3

object from Alex (B–A) AB–BA CA–AB–BAAlex protests to Ben (A–B) AÆB Dyadic Dyadic:

BA–AB AB–BA–ABBen moves away from Alex, watching Alex (B–A) BÆA Dyadic: Dyadic:

AB–BA AB–BA–ABAlex approaches Ben, fussing (A–B) AÆB Dyadic Dyadic:

BA–AB AB–BA–ABBen speaks to Alex, watching Alex (B–A) BÆA Dyadic: Dyadic:

AB–BA AB–BA–ABAlex fusses, and tugs on Ben’s toy (A–B) AÆB Dyadic: Dyadic:

BA–AB AB–BA–ABBen watches Alex (B–A) BÆA Dyadic Dyadic:

AB–BA AB–BA–ABAlex approaches Charles, and takes one of AÆC Transitive: Triadic2

Charles’s toys (A–C) BA–AC AB–BA–ACCharles releases the toy to Alex (C–A) CÆA Dyadic: Triadic3

AC–CA BA–AC–CAAlex watches Charles (A–C) AÆC Dyadic: Dyadic:

CA–AC AC–CA–ACCharles watches Alex (C–A) CÆA Dyadic Dyadic:

AC–CA CA–AC–CAAlex vocalizes to Ben, and watches Ben (A–B) AÆB Transitive: Triadic2

CA–AB AC–CA–AB

Toddler Triads 161


recorded episodes of peer interaction with 99 per cent agreement. They identified theinitiator and recipient of particular moves with 81 per cent agreement. Agreement onthe specific content of agreed-upon moves was k = .65, p < .01.

Categorization of Episodes. Active and minimal moves were defined as in Experiment1. Once again, an episode was considered to be minimally triadic if each member ofthe triad served as an actor in at least one move within the episode and actively triadicif each member of the triad served as an actor in at least one active move. Independ-ent observers achieved good agreement in recording the minimal move of watchingthe peer, k = .81, p < .01.

Episodes were judged to contain conflict when one child objected to somethinganother child was doing, that is, if one child’s behaviour had been protested, resisted,or retaliated against by at least one peer (Hay & Ross, 1982). Specific behavioural categories qualified as forms of protest, resistance, or retaliation: vocal and verbalprotest; resistance, by moving away, or withdrawing oneself or an object away fromthe peer’s grasp; attempts to regain a disputed object by reaching, contacting or tuggingon it; and forceful physical contact against the peer (see Table 4). Moves containingthese behavioural elements were designated as conflict moves; and, so, episodes couldbe classified as being comprised wholly or partially of conflict moves. Two independ-ent coders agreed on the presence of conflict, k = .91, p < .01.

Results

Evidence for Triadic Interaction

A total of 85 episodes of interaction were identified from the primary observer’srecords, containing 1,538 minimal moves and 913 active moves. The mean frequen-cies were 18.8 minimal and 11.1 active moves per episode. Out of the 85 episodes,60 (71 per cent) were found to be minimally triadic, and 43 (51 per cent) were activelytriadic.

Patterns of Triadic Influence

Two-move Sequences. The different possible sequences of two moves are presentedin Figures 2a and 2b for minimal and active interaction, respectively. As in Experi-ment 1, most sequences of moves were dyadic, with one child directing a move to oneof the peers who returned a move to the original child.

Nearly one-third of the minimal interaction sequences (31.4 per cent) showed triadicpatterns of influence (a qualitative example of a triadic interaction is presented in Table6). In contrast to Experiment 1, parallel influence was the most common pattern, transitive influence the least, c2

(2) = 15.84, p < .01. Active interaction episodes, on theother hand, contained fewer triadic sequences (15.4 per cent). No pattern of triadicinfluence occurred significantly more often than any other.

Three-move Sequences. Because the analysis of three-move sequences focuses on theroles of the third actor, only active interaction is considered (Figure 2c). (The pie chartconsolidates the monadic and dyadic categories insofar as only 0.6 per cent ofsequences were monadic.) The score of 15.5 per cent for triadic3 provides further evi-dence that 2-year-olds are capable of triadic interaction in which all three toddlers play



Circular9.9%

Transitive8.4% Repetitive

3.0%

Parallel13.1%

New recipient5.9%

Dyadic59.8%

New recipient

Parallel

Repetitive

Circular

Transitive

Dyadic

Figure 2a. Interaction Patterns (Minimal) for Two-move Sequences.

Circular6.1%Transitive

4.2%

Repetitive4.4%

Parallel5.1%

New recipient2.2%

Dyadic78.0%

New recipient

Parallel

Repetitive

Circular

Transitive

Dyadic

Figure 2b. Interaction Patterns (Active) for Two-move Sequences.

an active part. Indeed, most of the triadic sequences (60 per cent) involved all threechildren as initiators.

The Context of Triadic Interaction

To address the issue of whether triadic interaction might be more or less likely to occurif the 2-year-olds are engaging in conflict, we classified those interaction patterns for

Toddler Triads 163


both two- and three-move sequences that fell wholly within conflict episodes as conflict–influence patterns.

Two-move Sequences. The proportions of conflict and non-conflict two-movesequences are presented in Table 7. In contrast to McGrew’s (1972) findings, triadicinteraction was more likely to occur when children were not in conflict. The

Triadic3

15.5%

Triadic2

10.5%

Dyadic and Monadic74.1%

Dyadic and monadic

Triadic2

Triadic3

Figure 2c. Interaction Patters (Active) for Three-move Sequence Categories.

Table 7. Dyadic and Triadic Interaction Patterns during and outside of Conflict Two-move Patterns

Type of

Type of Move

InteractionConflict Non-conflict

Patterns F % F % Total z p

Repetitive 7 2.8 17 5.7 24 -1.65 NSNew 1 .4 11 3.7 12 2.61 p < .05

recipientDyadic 216 87.4 210 70.2 426 4.83 p < .05Circular 11 4.5 22 7.4 33 1.41 NSTransitive 6 2.4 17 5.7 23 -1.91 p < .10Parallel 6 2.4 22 7.4 28 2.63 p < .05Totals 247 99.9 299 100.1 546

Note: For each comparison, a test of two proportions in Conflict and Non-conflict was conducted(Lehner, 1996).NS, Not significant.



proportion of conflict sequences that were dyadic was greater than in non-conflictsequences, z = 4.83, p < .01. In particular, the parallel pattern was significantly morelikely to occur outside of conflict, z = 2.63, p < .01.

Three-move Sequences. At the level of three-move sequences, triadic interaction wassimilarly more likely to occur out of conflict (Table 8). Of the sequences in conflictepisodes, 79.7 per cent were monadic or dyadic; whereas, outside of conflict, only69.2 per cent were monadic or dyadic, z = 2.22, p < .05.

Gender Differences in Patterns of Triadic Influence

Two-move Sequences. When minimally triadic moves were considered, groups of girlsand groups of boys did not differ with respect to the extent to which each influencepattern was shown. However, with respect to actively triadic sequences, the circularpattern was observed in only 2.7 per cent of sequences in girl triads, but in 7.3 percent in boy triads, a significant difference, z = -2.00, p < .05.

Three-move Sequences. At the level of three-move sequences, the girl and boy triadsshow similar proportions of monadic, dyadic, and triadic3 sequences. However, for theboy triads, 12.4 per cent of sequences involved the triadic2 pattern, as opposed to 4.7per cent of three-move sequences in girls’ triads, z = -2.01, p < .05.

Conflict and Non-conflict Moves. Within the context of conflict, the girls’ groups weremore likely to show the repetitive pattern, in which one toddler makes repeated over-tures to a particular peer. The girls showed this pattern in 7.8 per cent of the two-movesequences, whereas the boy triads showed this pattern in only 1.5 per cent, z = 2.43,p < .05. No other significant gender differences were observed when conflict and non-conflict episodes were examined separately.

Table 8. Three-move Patterns during and outside of Conflict

Type of

Type of Move

InteractionConflict Non-conflict

Patterns F % F % Total z p

Monadic and 126 79.7 128 69.2 254 2.22 p < .05dyadic

Triadic2 12 7.6 24 13.0 36 1.62 NSTriadic3 20 12.7 33 17.8 53 1.32 NSTotals 158 100 185 100 343

Note: For each comparison, a test of two proportions in Conflict and Non-conflict was con-ducted (Lehner, 1996).NS, Not Significant.

Toddler Triads 165


General Discussion

The fundamental question posed in this study was ‘Can 2-year-olds interact in triads?’Previously, Hartup (1983) and McGrew (1972) suggested that interaction in pre-schoolchildren was predominantly dyadic. Furthermore, Hartup (1983) claimed that thedyadic situation was optimal for pre-schoolers’ experiences with peers.

Both Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence that previously unacquainted groupsof three 2-year-olds were capable of triadic interaction. It proved important to dis-tinguish between minimal participation in triadic interaction (by watching the othermembers of the group) and active participation (directing vocalizations, gestures, ormovements towards the peers). In the second experiment, a majority of episodes ofinteraction (71 per cent) were at least minimally triadic, and over half actively so.

One might argue that minimal triadic interaction is of negligible importance to chil-dren’s lives in social groups. However, gaze is an important social skill for pre-verbalinfants (Charman, Baron-Cohen, Swettenham, Baird, Cox & Drew, 2000) and is animportant regulator of social relationships in pre-school groups; being looked at bypeers is correlated with social competence in the pre-school years (Waters, Garber,Gornall & Vaughn, 1983). Thus, even this minimal participation in triadic interactionrepresents a form of social engagement with more than one peer at a time. Young chil-dren who have difficulty in regulating their own gaze or noticing the gaze of their com-panions, such as autistic children (Charman, Swettenham, Baron-Cohen, Cox, Baird& Drew, 1997), may have particular difficulties in managing to interact with peers,especially in the group setting.

Triadic interaction was also identified at a more molecular level, by inspecting two-move and three-move sequences. Patterns of triadic influence that had first been dis-cerned in observations of family interaction (Parke et al., 1979) were also apparent inthe interaction of 2-year-olds, in both experiments. Although most sequences of moveswere dyadic, transitive, parallel, and circular patterns of influence were observed. Inother words, triadic interaction occurred in several different ways: by a recipientextending the interaction to another person; by the third party similarly making anoverture to the original recipient; or by the third party completing the circle so thatthe original initiator became the recipient. It is evident that an individual child makeschoices as to the partners with whom he or she will interact. The dyadic pattern, inwhich one child reciprocated an overture by responding back to the initiator, was themost common option, but other choices were also made.

In contrast to earlier research (McGrew, 1972), triadic interaction did not occurmore frequently when the children were in conflict; rather, two-move sequences weremore likely to be triadic when the children were not in conflict. The parallel pattern,whereby the third party initiates behaviour to the original recipient, was significantlyless likely to occur if the children were in conflict.

It is in the context of conflict that the different triadic patterns take on distinctmeaning. For example, as Ross and Conant (1992) observed, ‘If A and B are the origi-nal conflict partners, and A has attacked B, then, if C attacks A [the transitive pattern],C is defending B. If, instead, C also attacks B [the parallel pattern], then an alliancehas formed between A and C. If A attacks B and then attacks C [the new recipientpattern], the attack has generalized. If B rather than A attacks C [the circular pattern],then displacement has occurred’ (p. 177).

In the present study, occurrence of the parallel pattern in the context of conflict mightimply that the third party was forming an alliance with the initial aggressor. Such a



coalition, in which two toddlers gang up on a third, might be actively discouraged bycaregivers, which may be one reason why the pattern occurs less often when the chil-dren are in conflict. This finding raises the more general issue that different patterns oftriadic influence take on different meaning in different contexts; it will be important toexamine these contextual factors more extensively in future research.

Some gender differences were found, although, given the small number of groupswho were compared, they should be interpreted with caution. There was no evidencefor girls showing a greater capacity for triadic interaction, as found for 5-year-olds(McLoyd et al., 1984). When active moves were considered, the boys’ groups showeda greater proportion of triadic sequences, particularly the circular pattern whereby apattern of influence went around the whole group. This pattern, as well as the tendencyfor girls to repeat overtures to the same peer, may possibly reflect the girls’ preferencesto interact in dyads (Benenson, 1993). Boys were more likely to show the pattern oftriadic interaction where two children are active initiators and the third a recipient of their overtures; the directing of overtures to the same peer may pre-date the domin-ance relationships that are especially characteristic of boys’ groups (Lafreniere &Charlesworth, 1987). These gender differences deserve attention in future research.

To conclude, it is evident from the foregoing analyses that even 2-year-old childrencan interact successfully as members of a very small group. As noted by other investigators (e.g., Lansford & Parker, 1999), there had been a dearth of studies onchildren’s triadic interaction despite their importance for the coalitions, alliances, and complex bully–victim–onlooker relationships of childhood. Future longitudinalresearch on changes in the capacity for triadic interaction and the underlying skillsthat support such interaction would be very welcome. An understanding of the factorsthat might make it difficult for young children to engage in interaction with more thanone child at a time would contribute to the emerging literature on the importance ofpeer relations for children’s later social adjustment.

References

Barrett, J. & Hinde, R. A. (1988). Triadic interactions: Mother–first-born–second-born. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships Within Families: Mutual Influences(pp. 181–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barton, M. E. & Tomasello, M. (1991). Joint attention and conversation in mother–infant–sibling triads. Child Development, 62, 517–529.

Belsky, J., Woodworth, S. & Crnic, K. (1996). Trouble in the second year: Three questions aboutfamily interaction. Child Development, 67, 556–578.

Benenson, J. F. (1993). Greater preference among females than males for dyadic interaction inearly childhood. Child Development, 64, 544–555.

Benenson, J. F., Apostolaris, N. H. & Parnass, J. (1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic andgroup interaction. Developmental Psychology, 33, 538–543.

Caplan, M., Vespo, J. E., Pedersen, J. & Hay, D. F. (1991). Conflict and its resolution in smallgroups of one- and two-year-olds. Child Development, 62, 1513–1524.

Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G., Cox, A. & Drew, A. (2000). Testingjoint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind.Cognitive Development, 15, 481–498.

Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Baird, G. & Drew, A. (1997). Infantswith autism: An investigation of empathy, pretend play, joint attention, and imitation. Devel-opmental Psychology, 33, 781–789.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research exploring the role of peer relation-ships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,42, 565–579.

Dunn, J. (1993). Young Children’s Close Relationships. London: Sage.

Toddler Triads 167


Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the developmentof social understanding in the second year. Child Development, 56, 480–492.

Elias, P., McKnight, A. & Kinshott, G. (1999). SOC 2000: Redefining Skill Revision of theStandard Occupational Classification. Skills Task Force Research Paper 19.

Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., Hanish, L. D., Anders, M. C. & Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2003).Early school competence: The roles of sex-segregated play and effortful control. Develop-mental Psychology, 39, 848–858.

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology(pp. 103–196). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hay, D. F. & Ross, H. S. (1982). The social nature of early conflict. Child Development, 53,105–111.

Hay, D. F., Payne, A. & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 45, 84–108.

Hay, D. F., Vespo, J. E. & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1998). Young children’s conflicts with their sib-lings and mothers: Links with maternal depression and bipolar illness. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 16, 519–538.

Hay, D. F., Castle, J., Stimson, C. A. & Caplan, M. Z. (1991). Does sharing become increas-ingly rational in the second year of life? Developmental Psychology, 27, 987–993.

Hay, D. F., Castle, J., Davies, L., Demetriou, H. & Stimson, C. (1999). Prosocial action in veryearly childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 905–916.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 576–604.

Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. Hove: Psychology Press.Ishikawa, F. (2003). Dyadic and Triadic Interaction between newly Acquainted Two-year-olds.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Keenan, K. & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on young girls’ early

problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95–113.Kreppner, K., Paulsen, S. & Schultze, Y. (1982). Infant and family development: From triads

to tetrads. Human Development, 25, 373–391.Lafreniere, P. J. & Charlesworth, W. (1987). Effects of friendship and dominance status on

preschoolers’ resource utilization in a cooperative competitive situation. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 10, 345–358.

Lansford, J. E. & Parker, J. G. (1999). Children’s interactions in triads: Behavioral profiles andeffects of gender and patterns of friendships among members. Developmental Psychology,35, 80–93.

Lehner, P. N. (1996). Handbook of Ethological Methods (2nd edn). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

McGrew, W. C. (1972). An Ethological Study of Children’s Behaviour. New York: AcademicPress.

McLoyd, V. C., Thomas, E. A. & Warren, D. (1984). The short-term dynamics of social orga-nization in preschool triads. Child Development, 55, 1051–1070.

Miller, A. L., Volling, B. L. & McElwain, N. L. (2000). Sibling jealousy in a triadic contextwith mothers and fathers. Social Development, 9, 433–457.

Parke R. D., Power T. G. & Gottman, J. M. (1979). Conceptualizing and quantifying influencepatterns in the family triads. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), SocialInteraction Analysis: Methodological Issues (pp. 231–252). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Peters, R. W. & Torrance, E. P. (1973). Effects of triadic interaction on performance of five-year-old disadvantaged children. Psychological Reports, 32, 755–758.

Ross, H. S. & Conant, C. L. (1992). The social structure of early conflict: Interaction, rela-tionships, and alliances. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in Child and Ado-lescent Development (pp. 153–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, H. S. & Hay, D. F. (1977). Conflict and conflict resolution between 21-month-old peers.Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,New Orleans, LA.

Ross, H. S., Martin, J., Perlman, M., Smith, M., Blackmore, E. & Hunter, J. (1996). Autonomyand authority in the resolution of sibling dispates. New Directions for Child Development,13, 71–90.



Selby, J. M. & Bradley, B. S. (2003). Infants in groups: A paradigm for the study of early socialexperience. Human Development, 46, 197–221.

Tremblay-Leveau, H. & Nadel, J. (1995). Young children’s communication skills in triads. Inter-national Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 227–242.

Waters, E., Garber, J., Gornall, M. & Vaughn, B. E. (1983). Q-sort correlates of visual regardamong preschool peers: Validation of a behavioral index of social competence. Develop-mental Psychology, 19, 550–560.

Acknowledgement

This study was partially sponsored by the Foundation for Child Development, KyoritsuWomen’s University, Tokyo, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge and the Faculty of Social andPolitical Sciences, Cambridge University.

Documents

Triadic Interaction among Newly Acquainted 2-year-oldspsych.cf.ac.uk/home2/hay/triadic2006.pdf · Triadic Interaction among Newly Acquainted 2-year-olds ... day care, nursery schools,