Abstract
Background: Children with language impairment (LI) experience social difficulties, including conflict management. The factors involved in peer‐conflict progression in pre‐school children with LI, and which of these processes may differ from pre‐school children with typical language development (TL), is therefore examined.
Aims: To describe the relationship between opponents interacting before conflict, aberrant conflict causes, the conflict‐resolution strategy reconciliation (i.e. friendly contact between former opponents shortly following conflict termination), and conflict outcome in the form of social interaction after a conflict has run its course. It is hypothesized that without social interaction before conflict, children with LI will experience increased difficulties attaining reconciliation.
Methods & Procedures: Unstructured play of 11 boys with LI (4–7 years old), at a specialized language pre‐school, and 20 boys with TL (4–6 years old), at mainstream pre‐schools, were video filmed. Conflicts were identified and recorded according to a validated coding system. Recorded conflict details include social interaction between conflict in the pre‐conflict period, behavioural sequences constituting conflict cause (conflict period), reconciliatory behaviours in the post‐conflict period, and social interaction between former opponents in the succeeding non‐conflict period. The group's mean proportion of individual children's conflicts in which specific behavioural sequences occurred were calculated and compared between and within the groups.
Outcomes & Results: When conflicts with and without pre‐conflict social interaction were analysed separately, aberrant caused conflicts occurred more often in LI group conflicts than in TL group conflicts. However, in conflicts without social interaction in the pre‐conflict period, boys with LI exhibit reconciliatory behaviours in, and reconcile a comparatively smaller proportion of, conflicts. Social interaction in the succeeding non‐conflict period was proportionately less for boys with LI. This appears to stem from lower reconciliation rates in LI conflicts that do not begin with social interaction in the pre‐conflict period. It was also confounded by the larger number of aberrant caused LI conflicts that were rarely reconciled. In turn, non‐reconciliation and aberrant caused conflicts were independently associated with comparatively less social interaction in the succeeding non‐conflict period.
Conclusions: The results suggest that in addition to traditional psycholinguistic training, children with LI may gain from interventions that support concluding behavioural turns, as in aberrant caused conflicts; and in initiating contact in conflict situations, even when a frame of reference is not immediately available, as was the case when opponents have not established social interaction in the pre‐conflict period.