Labeling, Affect, and Teachers' Hypothetical Approaches to Conflict Resolution: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

The current study investigated how teachers would intervene in hypothetical conflicts experienced by students in the classroom and how informal labeling of students and affect relate to teachers' hypothetical interventions. Thirty-one teachers from various early childhood learning centers were recruited for participation. Teachers were presented with 3 hypothetical situations depicting children involved in peer conflicts. They were asked to rate the child who had initiated the conflict according to lists of positive and negative characteristics, as well as to rate how much positive and negative affect was elicited from the situation. Next, teachers recorded how they would intervene in each conflict, with responses coded as either mediation or cessation. Results suggested that teachers tended to use more cessation than mediation in dealing with classroom conflict and that interventions varied depending on the described behavioral background of the child presented. Labeling and affect also varied among the 3 different child characterizations of easy, difficult, and ambiguous. Findings lend support to a relationship between both labeling and affect with teachers' negotiation interventions. Understanding the implications of this study in the context of its limitations is highlighted.