Articles

Interparental Conict and Preschoolers Peer Relations: The Moderating Roles of Temperament and Gender
Kevin M. David, University of Puget Sound and Bridget C. Murphy, Metropolitan State College of Denver

Abstract The relations between destructive interparental conict (IPC) and three- to six-yearolds ( N = 62) peer relations were examined as a function of child temperament and gender. Regression analyses indicated that effortful control moderated the relations of IPC with childrens amount of peer interaction as well as with their problematic relations with peers. Specically, high IPC was associated with low amount of interaction and high problematic relations for preschoolers low in effortful control, but it was related to high amount of interaction and low problems for those high in effortful control. Additionally, gender differences in the relations between IPC and the amount of peer interaction indicated that IPC was negatively related to the amount of interaction for girls but positively related to the amount for boys. The ndings highlight the need for examining individual differences in the relations between IPC and the development of early peer relations. Keywords: interparental conict; temperament; peer relations; gender Research has provided a wealth of information regarding the relations between destructive interparental conict (henceforth called IPC; i.e., frequent and intense conict) and childrens adjustment (see Cummings & Davies, 1994, 2002, for reviews). Until recently, however, relatively little attention has been given to the relations between IPC and more subtle aspects of childrens development, such as their peer relations (Katz & Gottman, 1994; Parke, Kim, Flyr, McDowell, Simpkins & Killian et al., 2001), although research suggests the importance of studying the impact that 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 become increasingly interested in identifying children who are particularly at risk for problems as 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: kdavid@ups.edu
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

& Fincham, 1990) and some empirical work (e.g., Davies& Windle, 2001) suggest that temperament moderates the impact of IPC on childrens adjustment. Yet the moderating 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 moderator 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 and preschoolers peer relations and to assess the extent to which these relations are moderated by individual differences in child temperament. Because previous research also suggests that boys and girls may be affected differently by IPC exposure (see Davies & Lindsay, 2001 for a review), another goal was to examine the moderating role of gender in the associations between IPC and childrens peer relations. Several theoretical perspectives suggest that exposure to destructive IPC is likely to contribute to childrens problems with peers. For instance, Grych and Fincham (1990) hypothesized that children exposed to destructive IPC may learn to be aggressive and to use maladaptive problem-solving strategies during peer interactions. Moreover, Davies and Cummings (1994) asserted that IPC exposure can undermine childrens emotional security, hindering their abilities to successfully cope with daily problems and to have constructive peer interactions by promoting emotional dysregulation (Katz & Gottman, 1995). Children exposed to destructive IPC also may act out (i.e., misbehave) to interrupt their parents bickering and regain some sense of emotional security (Cummings & Davies, 1994). This misbehavior may temporarily distract their parents and end the conict, which reinforces the use of destructive behaviors during subsequent exposures to IPC and in other contexts such as peer interactions. Indeed, previous research supports a relationship between IPC and childrens problematic peer relations, indicating that preschoolers become more aggressive toward a peer in a lab setting following exposure to simulated conict between adult strangers (Cummings, 1987). In addition, parents reports of IPC are positively related to their reports of school-aged childrens aggression and problematic peer relations (Marcus, Lindahl & Malik, 2001; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999) as well as to preschoolers negativity with unfamiliar peers in a lab setting, for example, trying to take another childs toy (Cookston, Harrist & Ainslie (2003). The ndings also show that marital hostility is positively related to preschoolers observed antisocial behaviors, for example, ghting (Katz & Gottman, 1995) and negative affect (Katz & Gottman, 1997) with their best friend. Interparental conict also seems to contribute to childrens enacted behavior during hypothetical peer interactions, as parents reports of destructive IPC are positively related to childrens aggressive responding during simulated peer conicts (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2004). Consequently, young children exposed to relatively high levels of IPC are particularly likely to have problematic peer relations. Further, increases in negative reactions to conict (El-Sheikh, 1994) are likely to lead children from high conict homes to avoid social situations in an effort to keep them out of conicts with others, perhaps as a way of preventing, and thus regulating, their own emotional arousal (Gordis, Margolin & John, 1997; Parke et al., 2001). The ndings provide some support for this hypothesis, indicating that preschoolers from discordant families tend to remain at lower, potentially conict-free levels of involvement, such as parallel play, with their best friend than preschoolers from nondiscordant families (Gottman & Katz, 1989). Thus, children from high conict homes are likely to display relatively low levels of involvement with peers and play less with their peers than children from low conict homes.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

Moreover, it is important to study the unique relations between IPC and the amount as well as overall quality of childrens peer interactions, because frequency of interactions does not always predict acceptance and competence with peers (e.g., Farver & Branstetter, 1994; Gottman, 1977). Indeed, some children who frequently interact with peers behave aggressively and are disruptive to peer interactions, whereas others are quite socially competent (Rubin, Coplan, Fox & Calkins, 1995). Similarly, some children who engage in low levels of peer interaction (i.e., those who stand back from peers and watch the activities of others from afar) are rated as higher on internalizing problems and social fear than are other children, whereas those who spend their time in solitary, quiet exploration or constructive play are rated as no different from their more sociable peers on these variables (Henderson, Marshall, Fox & Rubin, 2004). Therefore, the amount of interaction and level of problematic relations are two distinct aspects 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 variety of peers. Whereas assessments of childrens peer interactions in a laboratory provide useful information, because they allow for comparisons across various childrens interactions in a controlled setting, single snapshot observations (e.g., Cookston et 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 naturally occurring interactions with various familiar peers, as these interactions are likely to provide unique information regarding childrens typical peer interactions and everyday functioning. Moreover, using multiple methods to measure peer relations can provide unique information from each and a more complete assessment of childrens overall functioning with peers. In particular, teachers reports of childrens social competence are commonly used to assess peer relations and they can provide useful information because teachers know the children well, and may be more objective in their ratings than are parents (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 1998). Furthermore, some research indicates that IPC does not directly predict childrens peer relationships (Lindsey et al., 2002), possibly because interparental discord does not affect all children in the same way and different children vary in their reactions to IPC (Cummings, 1987; Davies & Forman, 2002). Indeed, Cummings found that the level of negative emotion that preschoolers expressed in response to interadult conict varied, such that some children expressed virtually no negative emotions whereas others expressed high levels of negative emotion. More recently, Davies and Forman found that school-aged children could be classied into three distinct emotional security proles (i.e., secure, dismissing and preoccupied) based on differences in their emotional, behavioral and cognitive reactions to simulated conict. Cummings noted that individual differences in responding to conict might be due, in part, to temperamental differences and Grych and Fincham (1990) suggested that aspects of emotionality and regulatory abilities, which are two central components of temperament (Rothbart & Bates, 1998), are likely to be important when considering the impact of IPC. Regarding specic 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 the associations between IPC and childrens peer relations are likely to be moderated by dispositional effortful control. Rothbart and Bates dened effortful control as the ability to inhibit a dominant response to perform a subdominant response (p. 137).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Effortful control reects dispositional self-regulation and involves the voluntary regulation of attention and behavior and the more reactive temperament systems such as negative emotionality (Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Derryberry and Rothbart (1997) suggested that children high in effortful control may be able to disengage from environmental threats and internal feelings of anxiety by focusing their attention on positive aspects of the environment, such that good effortful control is likely to allows for adaptive actions in contexts where children would otherwise focus on their own distress. Indeed, effortful control is negatively related to six- and sevenyear-olds dispositional negative emotionality, suggesting that effortful control may help attenuate negative affect (Rothbart, Ahadi & Hershey, 1994), and it is positively related 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 of regulation) 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 negative behaviors and emotions to other, more positive aspects of the environment, somewhat buffering them from the effects of IPC. In contrast, low effortful control is likely to exacerbate the relations between IPC and problematic peer relations. Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) hypothesized that children who have difculty regulating their emotional arousal are likely to become easily overaroused when they witness others negative states. Indeed, low effortful control is associated with childrens personal distress in response to an empathy-inducing lm and parents negative emotional expressivity in the home is negatively related to situational sympathy (in response to the same lm) for children low in effortful control (Valiente, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Cumberland & Losoya, 2004). Therefore, children low in effortful control may be particularly sensitive to their parents quarrelling and may become overwhelmed by their negative affect during exposure to IPC. Consequently, they may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of IPC on their relations with peers. Another temperament dimension that may moderate the relations between IPC and preschoolers peer relations is positive emotionality (Cummings, Goeke-Morey & Papp, 2003). Positive emotionality involves individual differences in frequency and amount of smiling, laughter, pleasure and sensitivity to positive environmental cues (Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler & West, 2000; Rothbart, 1989). Children prone to experiencing positive emotions may be particularly sensitive to positive and rewarding cues in the environment and may perceive stressors as temporary or as having the potential for positive outcomes in the future (Lengua, Sandler, West, Wolchik & Curran, 1999); thus, they may be unlikely to focus on threatening cues in stressful situations, which may help minimize negative reactions to stressors (Lengua et al., 1999; Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). Although there is a paucity of research regarding positive emotionality and adjustment in general, some limited work suggests that positive emotionality buffers children from the negative effects of a rejecting parenting style (Lengua et al., 2000). Further, childrens and adolescents positive emotional reactions to IPC in the home are associated with low levels of externalizing and internalizing problems (Cummings et al., 2003). Therefore, dispositional positive emotionality may somewhat protect 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
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

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 more or less susceptible to the effects of IPC (Cummings & Davies, 1994, 2002), boys and girls responses to IPC are qualitatively different (Davies & Lindsay, 2001). Young boys tend 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 conict (e.g., El-Sheikh, 1994). Because boys and girls different responses to IPC may carry over into their peer relationships, we examined the moderating role of gender. Previous work suggested that high levels of IPC would be associated with problematic peer relations for boys but would be related to lower levels of involvement with peers for girls, as they may internalize their feelings in response to IPC and withdraw from social interaction. Given the limited research on IPC and childrens peer relations (Katz & Gottman, 1994; Parke et al., 2001) and the need for further understanding regarding which children are particularly at risk and which children are buffered in the context of IPC (Cummings & Davies, 2002), we examined the relations between IPC and preschoolers 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 partners behaviors and strategies (e.g., yell, insult partner) in the context of IPC. To minimize the threat of shared-method variance, teachers completed measures of child temperament. The preschoolers peer relations were assessed with naturalistic observations conducted during free play at their day care center. Trained research assistants observed children numerous times over several weeks and coded the amount of their peer interactions and various aspects of their problematic peer relations. To obtain another 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 be negatively related to the amount of peer interaction and positively related to problems with 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 hypothesized relations between IPC and peer relations would be particularly strong for children low in effortful control and those low in positive emotionality. In contrast, we expected high effortful control and high positive emotionality to at least partially buffer children from 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 of peer interaction, particularly for girls, but more strongly positively related to problematic relations for boys than for girls.

Method Participants Sixty-two preschoolers from two-parent households (32 boys and 30 girls; age M = 4.70 years, SD = 1.01 years, range = 3.006.67 years) and their mothers participated in the present study. To recruit the participants, the rst author spoke with mothers at ve day care facilities as they picked up their children.1 After being informed about the study, approximately 80 percent of the mothers of children within the age range of interest agreed to participate and provided permission for their
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

childrens participation. Approximately 50 percent of the mothers who signed up returned their questionnaire packets that included the IPC measures. The majority of mothers were married to the childs biological father (84 percent), although 16 percent were 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). The mean income of the childrens households was $72,028 (SD = $39,993) and the mean education 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 focal individual 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 naturally occurring free play in their classrooms and in the playground when they were outside at their day care center. The observers had a list of the participants in the class and randomly 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 course of several weeks at various times of the day. Because the childrens amount of peer interaction was coded, the observers watched the children regardless of whether they were by themselves or interacting with other children. To assess inter-rater reliability, two observers independently observed the same child and coded the observational variables for 34 percent of the total number of observations. Approximately halfway through the observation data collection period, the mothers completed packets consisting of the IPC questionnaires and a demographic sheet. When the mothers packets were returned, they were paid $5 as partial compensation for their participation. Additionally, the teachers who knew the children best completed measures of their temperament and social competence and were paid $5 for each child questionnaire that they completed.

Amount of Peer Interaction The observers coded the amount of peer interaction in which children engaged during each observation on a ve-point scale (1 = no peer interaction to 5 = active physical/verbal exchange for virtually all of the observation), inter-rater r (638) = .96, p < .001. When coding amount of peer interaction, the observers considered the amount of time involved in peer interaction relative to the length of the observation and the types of activities that occurred when the children were with peers (e.g., taking part in a back-and-forth discussion with a peer was coded higher on the amount of interaction than was parallel play). Specically, a code of 1 reected no peer interactions for the entire observation, a 3 reected an even mixture of peer interaction and no interaction and a 5 reected high levels of peer interaction such that the child engaged in active verbal and/or physical interaction with peers for virtually the entire observation. Each childs amount codes from all of his or her observations were averaged to create a single score reecting the amount of peer interaction that was used in all analyses.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations Problematic Peer Relations

To assess the childrens problematic peer relations, the observers coded the level of their hostility with peers, the degree of negative affect they expressed with peers and the frequency with which they provoked their peers. In addition, the teachers completed 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 observations), observers coded the degree of the childs hostility toward peers using a vepoint 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 < .001. This code reected the extent to which children interacted with their peers in a negative and hostile manner and the observers considered the focal childs actions, verbalizations and gestures when coding. Further, although single acts of hostility were considered when coding, this code reected the overall level of the childs hostility during all interactions with peers across the entire observation and not one particular action. A code of 1 reected very pleasant, positive and friendly behaviors and verbalizations for the majority of the childs interactions. A code of 3 reected a mixture of slightly pleasant and slightly unpleasant interactions or neutral interactions for the majority of exchanges. A code of 5 reected very unpleasant, tense and problematic behaviors and verbalizations for the majority of interactions. Each childs codes from all of his or her observations involving some peer interaction were averaged to form a hostility composite (M = 2.36, SD = .25). Negative Affect with Peers. Following observations involving some peer interaction, observers coded the focal childs frequency of expressed negative affect. The codes were made using a three-point scale (1 = absence of negative affect, 2 = some negative affect and 3 = high negative affect) adapted from Fabes et al. (1999), inter-rater r (452) = .83, p < .001. When coding, the observers focused on the childs facial and verbal cues as well as body postures. A code of 1 reected the absence of expressed negative emotions such that the child was either neutral or positive for the entire observation, a 2 reected the expression of some negative emotion that did not last for the majority of the time and a 3 reected frequent negative affect in the form of negative facial expressions, behaviors and/or verbalizations lasting for the majority of the observation. Each childs negative affect codes from all of his or her observations involving some interaction were averaged to form a negative affect composite (M = 1.09, SD = .10) for use in analyses. Provoking Incidents. During each observation involving some peer interaction, the observers recorded the number of times the focal child provoked a peer without rst being provoked by the other child (see Shantz, 1987); that is, the focal child did something that potentially could be viewed as oppositional by another child, interrater k = .96). This was a categorical variable (i.e., presence/absence of behavior) assessing the frequency of a particular type of behavior (i.e., initial provocation toward a peer) during each observation. Provoking events could have been verbal (e.g., saying, no, youre wrong), physical (e.g., hitting), or gestural (e.g., giving dirty looks) oppositions. Furthermore, provoking events did not need to be acknowledged by the other child to be considered provoking and the focal child must have
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

initiated the provocation. The system used to code provoking incidents has been used before in research on preschoolers peer relations (Murphy & David, 2001). Because the participants did not all have equal numbers of observations, the rate of provoking events was calculated for each child (i.e., total number of provoking incidents divided by total number of observations involving some peer interaction; M = .07, SD = .09) and used as a measure of provoking incidents in subsequent analyses. Social Competence with Peers. The teachers completed an adapted version of the social competence subscale from Harters (1982) perceived competence scale for children. Although this questionnaire was originally designed as a self-report measure for school-aged children, it has been adapted and used in several studies examining teachers ratings of young childrens peer relations (e.g., Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 1997; Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Murphy, Guthrie & Jones, 1997). The adapted version used in the present study contained seven items (a = .86) that assessed the childrens popularity with peers and their overall social skills. Each item contained two opposing statements (e.g., This child nds it hard to make friends vs. For this child, its pretty easy to make friends) and the teachers responded by using Harters fourpoint response scale (i.e., they selected the statement that best described the child being rated and then indicated if the item was sort of or really true of the child). Higher scores on this scale reected higher levels of social competence. Data Reduction. Scores from the four measures reecting the quality of childrens peer relations were subjected to a principal components factor analysis, which revealed one factor with the following loadings: hostility (.88), negative affect (.62), provoking incidents (.74) and social competence (-.54).2 Thus, the social competence scores were reversed and scores from the four measures were standardized and averaged to create a problematic peer relations composite that was used in subsequent analyses; higher scores on this composite reected higher levels of problematic relations. Interparental Conict To assess destructive IPC, the mothers were asked to complete two subscales from the conict 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 measure of IPC when completed by mothers (Kerig, 1996). The frequency and verbal aggression scales were used as they reect aspects of IPC that have been found to be destructive for childrens adjustment (see Cummings & Davies, 2002 for a review). The two items on the frequency scale assessed how often parents have engaged in minor (e.g., spats) and major (e.g., big ghts) conicts over the past year and were answered on a six-point scale (1 = once a year or less to 6 = just about every day), r (60) = .69, p < .001, for the two frequency items. The 16 items on the verbal aggression scale assessed the frequency with which each mother and her partner yells, makes accusations and insults the other partner during IPC and were answered on a four-point scale (0 = never to 3 = often; a = .92; e.g., Raise voice, yell, shout). The frequency and verbal aggression subscales were highly related, r (60) = .65, p < .001; thus, scores from the two subscales were standardized and averaged to form a destructive IPC composite that was used in all analyses. Higher scores reected higher IPC.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations Temperament

To assess child temperament, the teachers completed subscales from the child behavior questionnaire (CBQ) (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey & Fisher, 2001) and the revised dimensions 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; Rothbart et al., 2001), effortful control was assessed using the following subscales from the CBQ: (1) attentional focusing (nine items; a = .77; e.g., When drawing or coloring in a book, shows strong concentration); (2) inhibitory control (13 items; a = .93; e.g., Is good 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, the teachers decided whether each statement is true or untrue of the child being rated within the past six months and made ratings on a seven-point scale (1 = extremely untrue of this child to 7 = extremely true of this child). Positive Emotionality. To assess positive emotionality, the teachers completed the smiling and laughter subscale of the CBQ (13 items; a = .85; e.g., Laughs a lot at jokes and 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, the teachers were instructed to decide how true or false each statement is regarding the child and to respond using a four-point scale (1 = usually false to 4 = usually true). Data Reduction. Scores from the six temperament scales were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation, which revealed two factors with the following loadings: (1) attentional focusing (.86), inhibitory control (.90), low intensity pleasure (.73) and perceptual sensitivity (.56) and (2) smiling and laughter (.92) and mood quality (.91). Thus, the scores loading onto the rst factor were averaged to form an effortful control composite that was used in subsequent analyses. Higher scores on this composite reected higher levels of effortful control. Scores loading onto the second factor came from two questionnaires with different scales and so scores from these subscales were standardized and averaged to create a positive emotionality composite that was used in subsequent analyses; higher scores on this composite indicated higher positive emotionality. The effortful control and positive emotionality composite scores were not signicantly 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 other variables. Regression analyses assessing the prediction of preschoolers peer relations by IPC, temperament and gender followed the preliminary analyses. Means and standard deviations for the major variables are presented in Table 1.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

10

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Major Variables Total Measure Destructive IPCa Temperament Effortful controlb Positive emotionalitya Peer Relations Amount of interactionc Problematic relationsa
a b

Girls SD .91 .67 .93 M -.12 4.58 .12 SD .79 .49 .89 M .11 3.87 -.11

Boys SD .97 .64 .96

M .00 4.21 .00

2.74 .00

.55 .70

2.72 -.17

.52 .59

2.75 .16

.58 .76

Composite of standardized scores from more than one measure. Possible scores ranged from 17. c Possible scores ranged from 15. IPC = interparental conict.

Relations with Age Although a relatively narrow age range (i.e., three- to six-year-olds) was assessed and there were no specic predictions regarding age, we examined the relations between age and the major variables. Zero-order correlations indicated that age was positively related to amount of peer interaction, r (60) = .31, p < .02, and negatively correlated with positive emotionality, r (60) = -.34, p < .01. However, age was unrelated to IPC, effortful control and problematic peer relations, rs (60) = .00, .09 and -.12, p > .05 respectively. Although we controlled for age in initial regression analyses, it was dropped from all analyses because it did not change any of the results.

Gender Differences To assess gender differences we conducted two separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with gender as the independent variable and the temperament dimensions and the peer relations variables as the multiple dependent variables, respectively, and a t-test on IPC scores. The omnibus test for temperament was signicant, F (2, 59) = 11.53, p < .001. Univariate analyses indicated that girls were rated by teachers as signicantly higher on effortful control than were boys, F (1, 60) = 23.44, p < .001, although boys and girls did not differ on positive emotionality, F (1, 60) = 1.01, n.s. The multivariate test for the peer relations variables (i.e., amount of interaction and problematic peer relations) was not signicant, F (2, 59) = 2.06, p > .05, and a t-test revealed no gender difference on IPC, t(60) = 1.02, p > .05.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations Relations between Destructive IPC and the Other Variables

11

Contrary to expectations, destructive IPC was not signicantly correlated with the amount of peer interaction and problematic peer relations, rs (60) = .08 and -.04, p > .05, respectively. IPC also was unrelated to effortful control and positive emotionality, 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 moderating effects of temperament and gender, we conducted separate multiple regression analyses to predict the two criterion variables reecting childrens peer relations: the amount of interaction and problematic peer relations. Following the recommendation of Aiken and West (1991), predictor variables were entered hierarchically in the following order for each analysis: (1) the main effects of IPC, effortful control, positive emotionality and gender and (2) the two-way interactions between IPC and effortful control, between IPC and positive emotionality, and between IPC and gender (IPC and positive emotionality scores were already in standardized form and effortful control was centered before its interaction term was created). This hierarchical order of entry allowed for the examination of whether the interactions predicted signicant variance in peer relations above and beyond the variance accounted for by the main effects. The three-way interactions between the predictors (i.e., between IPC, effortful control and gender; between IPC, effortful control and positive emotionality and between IPC, positive emotionality and gender) and the four-way interaction (i.e., between IPC, effortful control, positive emotionality and gender) were initially entered on the third and fourth steps of each analysis, respectively. However, none of these interactions were signicant and so they were dropped from all analyses. Signicant two-way interactions were plotted and tested using Aiken and Wests (1991) procedures for assessing and mapping interactions in regression. Specically, for two-way interactions between IPC and temperament, the simple regression lines predicting the criterion variable from IPC were plotted for low (-1 SD) and high (+1 SD) 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 simple slopes were examined to determine if they differed signicantly from zero. Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction. Results from the regression analysis predicting amount of peer interaction are presented in Table 2. The main effects did not produce a signicant change in R2 on the rst step and none of the individual betas were signicant. On the second step, the two-way interactions as a block signicantly predicted amount. Specically, a signicant interaction between IPC and effortful control indicated that IPC was negatively related to amount of peer interaction for children low in effortful control but positively related to amount for those high in effortful control (see Figure 1; the slopes for low and high effortful control were -.21 and .25, p < .05, respectively). A signicant interaction between IPC and gender revealed that IPC was negatively related to amount of interaction for girls but positively related to amount for boys (see Figure 2; the slopes for girls and boys were -.24 and .26, p < .05, respectively). The interaction between IPC and positive emotionality was not signicant.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

12

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Table 2. Regression Analyses Predicting Amount of Peer Interaction and Problematic Peer Relations Amount of Peer Interaction R2 Change .03 F for Step .47 .03 .15 .00 -.14 .15 3.28* .34** .00 -.50** .18 5.40** -.47** -.07 .13 Problematic Peer Relations R2 Change .20 F for Step 3.63* .00 -.42** -.08 -.01

Predictors Step 1 Destructive IPC Effortful control Positive emotionality Gender Step 2 IPC effortful control IPC positive emotionality IPC gender

Beta

Beta

IPC = interparental conict. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Prediction of Problematic Peer Relations. Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis predicting problematic peer relations. The main effects entered as a block on the rst step produced a signicant change in R2. However, the only signicant individual predictor was effortful control, as high levels of effortful control were associated with low levels of problematic peer relations. On the second step, the two-way interactions as a block signicantly contributed to prediction. Specically, a signicant interaction between IPC and effortful control indicated that IPC was positively related to problems for children low in effortful control but negatively related to problems for those high in effortful control (see Figure 3; the slopes for low and high effortful control were .28 and -.34, ps < .05, respectively). The interactions between IPC and positive emotionality and between IPC and gender were not signicant. Discussion Although some research has shown that IPC is associated with young childrens peer relationships (e.g., Cookston et al., 2003; Katz & Gottman, 1995), the present study is one of the rst investigations of the moderating role of child temperament in the relations between destructive IPC and preschoolers everyday functioning with peers. Although zero-order correlations indicated that IPC was not signicantly related to childrens peer relations, ndings from regression analyses extend previous work by demonstrating that young childrens peer relations are affected differently by IPC depending on their levels of dispositional effortful control. The moderating effects of effortful control may account for the nonsignicant main effect of IPC, as the signicant relations between IPC and preschoolers peer relations were in opposite
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

5

13

4.5

Low effortful control High effortful control

Amount of peer interaction

3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Low Medium High

Destructive IPC

Figure 1. Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction by IPC and Effortful Control. Note: IPC = interparental conict. directions for children low and high in effortful control. Specically, IPC was negatively related to the amount of peer interaction and positively related to problematic relations for children low in effortful control but positively related to amount of interaction and negatively related to problems for those high in effortful control. Gender also moderated the associations between IPC and peer relations, as higher IPC was related to a lower amount of interaction for girls but associated with a higher amount for boys. Thus, ndings highlight the importance of considering intrapersonal attributes as sources of individual differences when examining the role of IPC in the development of peer relations. Consistent with expectations, preschoolers low in effortful control seemed to be particularly 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 with peers. Children low in regulation become easily overaroused by their own emotional reactions during stressful situations, which commonly leads to personal distress and a focus on the self rather than others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992). Further, individuals who are low in dispositional regulation are particularly likely to become sensitized to negative 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, preschoolers who are low in effortful control and come from high conict homes are likely to become overwhelmed by their own emotions during exposure to negative
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

14
5

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

4.5

Girls Boys

Amount of peer interaction

3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Low High

Destructive IPC

Figure 2. Prediction of Amount of Peer Interaction by IPC and Gender. Note: IPC = interparental conict. interactions, both at home and with peers, which can contribute to negative interpretations and assessments of social situations and result in hostile interactions with peers (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Further, although the present ndings do not determine whether preschoolers low in effortful control purposely avoid other children or if they have low levels of interaction because they are rejected based on their hostile responses, the results nevertheless indicate that they do engage in relatively low amounts of peer interaction. Withdrawing from peers can lead to subsequent problems as they are likely to be missing out on fully developing the social and cognitive skills that advance in the context of peer interactions and play (Rubin et al., 1998). Future research should focus on the nature of poorly regulated childrens peer relations in more detail to ascertain if they are particularly prone to internalizing or externalizing symptoms in the context of IPC. Although adjustment problems were not directly assessed in the present study, the ndings suggest that they may be at risk for both types of problems as they interacted less and had more problems with their peers than other children. Nevertheless, the factors and processes that determine their vulnerability to specic types of adjustment problems remain unclear. In contrast, high effortful control seemed to foster childrens abilities to maintain relatively constructive peer relations at high levels of IPC. Effortful control involves the abilities to voluntarily regulate attention, emotion and behaviors and cognitions that are emotion-related as well as those that are unrelated to emotions (Derryberry &
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

.1

15

.8

Low effortful control High effortful control

.6

.4

Problematic peer relations

.2

.0

.2

.4

.6

. 8

.1 Low Medium High

Destructive IPC

Figure 3. Prediction of Problematic Peer Relations by IPC and Effortful Control. Note: IPC = interparental conict.

Rothbart, 1997; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Emotion regulation abilities are believed to inuence what individuals notice about social situations and the meanings they attribute to them (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Although young children in general tend to focus on immediate concerns regarding their own safety and arousal during IPC (Grych & Cardoza-Fernandes, 2001), preschoolers high in effortful control may be able to disengage from environmental threats and enhance positive rather than negative aspects of stressful situations such as IPC. Thus, their regulatory abilities likely allow them to evaluate their parents conicts from a more detached and less emotional perspective, fostering empathy in the form of sympathy rather than a focus on their own emotions (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1995; Posner & Rothbart, 2000). Moreover, although they are likely to experience sympathy in response to IPC, children high in effortful control are unlikely to become directly involved in their parents conicts. Childrens emotional reactivity and behavioral dysregulation in response to IPC are positively related to their involvement in their parents conicts (Davies, Forman, Rasi & Stevens, 2002), suggesting that children with difculties in regulating their reactivity and behavior (i.e., those low in effortful control), rather than those who are able to effectively regulate their reactions, are particularly likely to become emotionally overwhelmed and enmeshed in their parents quarrels. In contrast, experiencing sympathy rather than personal distress may lead children high in effortful control to focus on their parents emotions and on the conict outcomes (e.g., parents interactions immediately following conict), which may result in a greater awareness of the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

16

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

disruptiveness of negative interactions as the preschoolers are able to correctly identify others 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 negative exchanges and maintain positive interactions in their own relationships. Interestingly, rather than being unrelated to peer relations, high IPC was associated with more frequent peer interactions and fewer problems with peers for children high in effortful control. Parke et al. (2001) suggested that some children exposed to destructive IPC may develop compensatory relationships as a way of avoiding conicts and angry situations. Some ndings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (Dunn, Deater-Deckard, Pickering, OConnor, Golding & the ALSPAC Study Team, 1998) support this idea, as motherpartner hostility signicantly predicted friendliness between siblings in early childhood. Although the factors promoting the development of these forms of relationships are not well understood, it is children high in effortful control who are likely to be capable of developing compensatory relationships. These children are effective at approaching situations in the face of punishment and 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 rewarding features of aggression as well as from negative cues related to anger (Posner & Rothbart, 2000), which is likely to lead to constructive behavior during peer interactions. Moreover, children high in effortful control who are from high conict homes may be particularly selective when choosing the peers with whom they interact. That is, their experiences with IPC may lead them to seek out and play with peers who typically 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 include relatively low levels of problems. Further, engaging in frequent peer interactions that are relatively low in problems is likely to facilitate overall adjustment. Children who behave in a prosocial manner with peers tend to have more friends than other children, which contributes to their subsequent peer acceptance, psychological adjustment and academic success (see Rubin et al., 1998 for a review). Moreover, although peer relations were examined as an outcome in the present study, the development of constructive compensatory relationships 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 even relatively high scores on the IPC measures in the present study were not particularly high in absolute terms (for frequency, M = 7.35, SD = 3.27 on a 318 scale; for verbal aggression, M = 1.42, SD = .57 on a 03 scale). Thus, exposure to moderately high levels of IPC may be somewhat benecial for children who can effectively modulate their own arousal and attention, as it may provide opportunities to learn about negative emotions and differences of opinion. However, other researchers have found somewhat higher levels of destructive IPC in community samples (e.g., El-Sheikh et al., 2001; Kerig, 1996) and levels of destructive IPC are signicantly 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 the impact of very high levels of conict, as their regulatory abilities seem to foster adjustment in the context of moderately high levels of IPC but the benets of effortful control in the context of more severe IPC remain unclear.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

17

Contrary to expectations, positive emotionality did not moderate the relations between IPC and childrens peer relations. Although children high in positive emotionality may focus on positive aspects of the environment and maintain a positive outlook during stressful situations (Lengua, 2002), their abilities to regulate attention and 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 experiencing high levels of positive affect may not help children maintain a low level of arousal during IPC, whereas good regulatory abilities allow children to modulate their reactivity so that they can focus on constructive reactions to stressful situations such as IPC. Similarly, the present ndings suggest that low levels of positive emotionality may not contribute to negative effects of IPC as long as the children can effectively regulate their emotional reactions to IPC. Nonetheless, because previous research suggests that positive emotionality plays a role in moderating the relations between family experiences and adjustment (Lengua et al., 2000) and research on the protective function of positive emotionality is scarce (Lengua, 2002), further work is needed to fully examine the role that positive emotionality plays in the context of IPC. The ndings also indicated that gender moderated the relations between IPC and the preschoolers amount of peer interaction. Specically, IPC was negatively related to the amount of interaction for girls but positively related to the amount for boys. Although conceptual explanations of the processes underlying gender differences in the context of IPC are in the early stages of development (Davies & Lindsay, 2001), some researchers believe that gender differences in socialization are likely to result in the development of dispositions reecting agency and self-interest in boys and communion and interpersonal connectedness in girls (see Ruble & Martin, 1998). Therefore, boys may be particularly focused on themselves during exposure to IPC, whereas girls may be especially sensitive to the overall quality of relationships and the implications that conicts have for relationships. Indeed, research suggests that young girls are more sensitive to characteristics of hypothetical peer conict such as conict intensity (David, Murphy, Naylor & Stonecipher, 2004) and inter-adult conict such as resolution (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 and arousal. Withdrawing from peers may lead to later difculties with peers, as children from discordant homes who play at low levels of involvement with peers may not learn the complex interaction skills that are necessary for successful peer interactions (Gottman & Katz, 1989; Grych & Fincham, 1990). In addition, preschool children classied as socially reticent (i.e., children who stand back from groups but carefully watch 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 toward internalizing problems for girls from high conict homes may begin with withdrawing from peers during early childhood, although additional research is needed to examine the mediating role of social withdrawal in the relations between IPC and the development of internalizing problems. In contrast, preschool boys from high conict homes may be particularly likely to seek out peers as a source of comfort by interacting with them more than boys from low conict homes because young boys generally are more assertive and physically
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

18

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

active than are young girls (Eaton & Enns, 1986; Ruble & Martin, 1998) and they tend to manifest their reactions to interadult anger behaviorally (El-Sheikh, 1994). Furthermore, boys from discordant families may seek out high levels of peer interaction because boys spend more time in peer groups than do girls, who tend to spend time 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 of companionship. However, it is important to note that in the present study the problematic peer relations of the boys did not vary as a function of IPC; thus, if young boys are seeking out their peers as sources of distraction and support, it is unclear whether they are successful in their attempts to engage in positive peer interactions to offset the negativity they witness at home. Future research should assess the extent to which children from high conict homes, particularly boys, seek out peers as sources of comfort, and the factors that contribute to the protective role of peers in the context of IPC. Some limitations of the present study warrant discussion. Although the observations and teacher ratings in the present study provided valuable information regarding young childrens everyday functioning with various peers, there are several variables pertaining to peer relations that were not assessed and require investigation. Specically, Parke et al. (2001) highlight the importance of studying the relations between specic IPC tactics displayed in the home and childrens conict resolution strategies with peers, as it is likely that IPC inuences childrens repertoire of conict tactics and the way they approach conict resolution in their own, ageappropriate relationships (Dadds, Atkinson, Turner, Blums & Lendich, 1999; Kitzmann & Cohen, 2003). Indeed, parents reports of destructive IPC are related to young childrens conict strategies in simulated peer conicts (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., 2004), suggesting the importance of examining the relations between IPC and childrens actual peer conicts. Moreover, although the children interacted with various peers during the observations, it is possible that they chose to interact with their friends more often than with other children. Research indicating that children behave more positively with their friends than with other peers (see Laursen, Hartup & Koplas, 1996; Rubin et al., 1998, for reviews) suggests that children from high conict homes may be particularly likely to evidence disruptions in interactions with non-friends. Thus, if children did play with friends more often than with other peers, then the relations between IPC and the childrens problematic peer interactions may have been attenuated and underestimated the negative impact of IPC on their social competence. Despite this possibility, the ndings revealed associations between high IPC and infrequent and problematic peer interactions for children low in effortful control, suggesting that these children are particularly vulnerable to disturbances in their relations with peers. Nevertheless, future research should examine the extent to which the associations between IPC and peer relations vary as a function of relationship. Furthermore, given that the data are correlational, it is difcult to draw causal conclusions regarding the ways in which temperament and gender moderate the relations between IPC and childrens peer relations. The developmental models are likely to be complex. Although aspects of temperament such as effortful control can inuence learning processes, interpretations and selections of situations, and elicitation of reactions from others (Rothbart & Bates, 1998), environmental factors can also contribute to the development of dispositional tendencies (Caspi, 1998). Indeed, Davies and Cummings (1994) asserted that consistent exposure to destructive IPC may contribute
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

19

to the development of low emotion regulation and Eisenberg et al. (2004) noted that children can learn methods of controlling their emotion, attention and behavior that foster resilience. The t of dispositional characteristics with environmental factors viewed 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 the relations between family experiences and social development. In conclusion, the present study is one of the rst to examine the relations of IPC to young childrens naturally occurring peer relations as a function of temperament and gender. These ndings add to a growing body of research pertaining to the inuence of IPC on social development by demonstrating that IPC is differentially related to peer relations for preschoolers varying in effortful control and for boys and girls. Although it 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 ndings suggest that effortful control plays a signicant role in determining the effects of destructive IPC and support the hypothesis that dispositional regulation fosters resiliency in the face of adversity (Eisenberg et al., 2004; Eisenberg, Guthrie et al., 1997). Given that childhood peer relations have important implications for long-term adjustment (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Parker & Asher, 1987), the continued pursuit of identifying variables that interact with IPC in contributing to the development of peer relations is an important task for researchers seeking to ascertain which children are most resilient or vulnerable in high conict homes.

References
Ahadi, 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 consensual knowledge about the experiential determinants of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 968976. Benenson, J. F., Apostoleris, N. H., & Parnass, J. (1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic and group 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 personality development (5th ed.), pp. 311388. New York: Wiley. Cookston, J. T., Harrist, A. W., & Ainslie, R. C. (2003). Afliative and instrumental marital discord, 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 Development, 58, 976984. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conict: The impact of family dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital conict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 3163. Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003). Childrens responses to everyday marital conict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74, 19181929.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

20

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Dadds, M. R., Atkinson, E., Turner, C., Blums, G. J., & Lendich, B. (1999). Family conict and child adjustment: Evidence for a cognitive-contextual model of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 194208. David, K. M., & Murphy, B. C. (2004). Interparental conict and late adolescents sensitization to conict: The moderating effects of emotional functioning and gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 187200. David, K. M., Murphy, B. C., Naylor, J. M., & Stonecipher, K. M. (2004). The effects of conict role and intensity on preschoolers expectations about peer conict. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 508517. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387411. Davies, P. T., & Forman, E. M. (2002). Childrens patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73, 18801903. Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M., Rasi, J. A., & Stevens, K. I. (2002). Assessing childrens emotional security 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 conict on children? In J. H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 6497). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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 organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 633652. Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Shamir, H., & Cummings, E. M. (2004). Marital conict, childrens representations of family relationships, and childrens dispositions towards peer conict strategies. Social Development, 13, 171192. Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., OConnor, T., Golding, J., & the ALSPAC Study Team. (1998). Childrens adjustment and prosocial behaviour in step-, single-parent, and non-stepfamily settings: Findings from a community study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 10831095. Eaton, W. O., & Enns, L. R. (1986). Sex differences in human motor activity level. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 1928. Eisenberg, N. (2002). Emotion-related regulation and its relation to quality of social functioning. 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 social competence. 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 emotional responding 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). The relations 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 regulation 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 social functioning 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 adjustment. 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 functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 761776.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations

21

El-Sheikh, M. (1994). Childrens emotional and physiological responses to interadult angry behavior: The role of history of interparental hostility. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 661678. El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E. M., & Reiter, S. (1996). Preschoolers responses to interadult conict: The role of experimentally manipulated exposure to resolved and unresolved arguments. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 665679. El-Sheikh, M., Harger, J., & Whitson, S. M. (2001). Exposure to interparental conict and childrens adjustment and physical health: The moderating role of vagal tone. Child Development, 72, 16171636. Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., et al. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70, 432442. Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Nyman, M., & Michealieu, Q. (1991). Young childrens appraisals of others spontaneous emotional reactions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 858866. Farver, J. M., & Branstetter, W. H. (1994). Preschoolers prosocial responses to their peers distress. Developmental Psychology, 30, 334341. Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Marital aggression, observed parental hostility, and child behavior during triadic family interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 7689. Gottman, J. M. (1977). Toward a denition 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 conict on children: The role of social cognitive processes. In J. H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 157187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conict and childrens adjustment: A cognitivecontextual 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 and behavioral 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 emotional development. In R. D. Parke, & S. G. Kellam (Eds.), Exploring family relationships with other social contexts (pp. 4974). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1995). Marital interaction and child outcomes: A longitudinal study 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 conict and dissolution. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 157171. Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conict and child adjustment: The conicts 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 marital functioning and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 749753. Kitzmann, K. M., & Cohen, R. (2003). Parents versus childrens perceptions of interparental conict as predictors of childrens friendship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 689700. Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difculties in the development of childrens psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74, 1344 1367. Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W., & Koplas, A. L. (1996). Towards understanding peer conict. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 76102. Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition 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.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

22

Kevin M. David and Bridget C. Murphy

Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Wolchik, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999). Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 1537. Lengua, L. J., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (2000). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and temperament in predicting adjustment problems of children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232244. Lindsey, E. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Campbell, J., Frabutt, J. M., & Lamb, M. E. (2002). Marital conict and boys peer relationships: The mediating role of motherson emotional reciprocity. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 466477. Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2001). Interparental conict, childrens social cognitions, and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 315333. Murphy, B. C., & David, K. M. (2001, April). Non-escalated provocation vs. conict: The role of regulation and the provoking context. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing 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 conict: Links with childrens peer relationships. In J. H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 291314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357389. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development 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 temperament 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 development (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 personality development (5th ed.), pp. 9331016. New York: Wiley. Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283305. Shantz, C. U., & Hobart, C. J. (1989). Social conict 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 conict 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 and parents 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 individuality across the life span: The revised dimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 213230.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007

Interparental Conict and Peer Relations Acknowledgments

23

The authors thank the parents, teachers, administrators and children at La Petite and KinderCare as 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 ve day care facilities were all similar in number of classrooms, teachers and children. Moreover, multivariate analyses failed to reveal signicant differences between the day care centers on the major variables of interest, although two day care centers were signicantly different from one another on mean provoking incidents. This was likely because of the two highest scores on provoking incidents coming from the same day care centre. 2. Zero-order correlations revealed that hostility toward peers was positively associated with negative affect with peers as well as provoking incidents and negatively related to social competence, rs (60) = .41, .61 and -.32, ps < .05, respectively. However, the zero-order correlations among negative affect, provoking incidents and social competence were not signicant.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Social Development, 16, 1, 2007