Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1989
Managing Conflict: Interactionai Strategies of Learning Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Adolescent Girls Andrea G. Zetlin I
Received November 24, 1987; accepted October 25, 1988
Naturalistic observations of learning handicapped and nonhandicapped high school girls were conducted to explore differences in the types and effectiveness of interaction strategies used during troubled peer contacts. Findings indicated that learning handicapped girls engaged in more conflict than nonhandicapped females and that this conflict generally involved dominance/submission themes and was managed in ways which increased the probability of future conflict. Conflict involving nonhandicapped girls mostly focused on selfishness or low tolerance for peer's habits and was handled in ways which lowered the likelihood o f future disagreements. Implications o f these findings with regard to the social standing of the learning handicapped girls in the school setting is discussed.
INTRODUCTION The quality o f interpersonal relationships during the adolescent life stage has been s h o w n to be a valid p r e d i c t o r o f a d u l t f u n c t i o n i n g ( C o w e n et al., 1973). A d o l e s c e n t f r i e n d s h i p s serve as a f o u n d a t i o n for e g a l i t a r i a n r e l a t i o n ships with spouses, n e i g h b o r s , o r c o - w o r k e r s in later a d u l t life. T h e y are also i m p o r t a n t resources for a d o l e s c e n t i n d i v i d u a t i o n a n d i d e n t i t y d e v e l o p m e n t
This research was supported by Grant No. HD23097 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. ~Research Associate Professor in the School of Education, University of Southern California, Waite Phillips Hall-- 303, University Park, Los Angeles, 90089-0031. Received her Ed.D. from Columbia University. Current interest is social competence and family relations of learning handicapped populations. 263 0047-2891/89/0600-0263506.00/0 9 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation
264
Zetlin
(Berndt, 1982; Patterson and McCubbin, 1987). Through the young person's association with peers, opportunities are provided to relate intimately with someone outside the family and to experience relationships in which both members can express opinions and be listened to (Berndt, 1982; Hill, 1980; Hunter, 1984). Studies examining friendship patterns among mildly learning handicapped adolescents (i.e., learning disabled and mildly mentally retarded) have consistently found less developed and more troubled relations between peers. Although authors note variability within the population- with at least some learning handicapped youngsters achieving stable and mutually responsive peer associations--the majority are found to be at risk for poor interpersonal relations (Dubley-Marling and Edmiaston, 1985; Perlmutter et al., 1983; Zetlin, 1987). Among the reasons presumed responsible are deficits in social perception leading to inappropriate behavior (Kronick, 1978) and being more aggressive than nondisabled peers in exerting influence over others (Perlmutter et al., 1983). A recent study by Zetlin and Murtaugh (1987) compared the friendship patterns of learning handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents in terms of intimacy, empathy, and stability. They found fewer friendships and more discordant associations within the handicapped sample. Their data also revealed less evidence of intimacy and empathy between the handicapped teens and their peers, although relatively low levels of empathy were observed in both groups. Examination of why friendships ended and why so much bickering existed turned up no behaviors specific to the handicapped or nonhandicapped samples. Rather, both groups displayed similar behaviors leading to peer disturbances. These included undesirable personality characteristics such as being bossy or moody, having a stuck-up attitude, being a rumor monger, and being a liar or "two-faced." Research with children indicates that youngesters with friendship difficulties display problematic strategies that destabilize interactions with peers (Selman and Demorest, 1984). These difficulties appear due to socialcognitive competence deficits that limit their behavioral effectiveness. Younger vs. older and unpopular vs. popular children tend to select strategies that are less normative, less prosocial, less effective at solving the problem, and in conflict situations, more aggressive than their counterparts (Carlson, 1987; Renshaw and Asher, 1983). Stainback and Stainback (1987) contend that the ability to resolve conflict effectively is one of the most difficult skills needed to master in forming and maintaining friendships. Those less competent socially tend to deal with conflict in either an "overtly aggressive or submissive manner rather than by constructive attempts to meet their own needs without infringing on the needs or rights of others" (p. 21). The question remains as to the types and effectiveness of interaction strategies used by adolescents during troubled peer contacts, and whether there are group
Managing Conflict
265
differences in the strategies that learning handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents employ that may account for the less developed friendship patterns of learning handicapped adolescents. The present study was designed to build on the findings of Zetlin and Murtaugh's (1987) exploration of friendship patterns. Specifically, analysis focused on why the majority of peer associations within the learning handicapped and nonhandicapped samples were short-lived and marked by conflict. In this study, adolescent girls (15 learning handicapped and 15 nonhandicapped) comprise the sample. Their overt behavioral interaction styles in handling problematic peer encounters are examined and compared. The study has been limited to female adolescents because (a) more affiliative behavior is expected of adolescent girls than boys and (b) adolescent girls rely more on peer support than boys (Patterson and McCubbin, 1987). Unlike most studies investigating interpersonal strategies that rely on a hypothetical-situations interview method in which subjects are asked to describe how they would handle various problematic encounters, this study is unique in that observational data of troubled interactions in real-life contexts form the data base.
METHOD Sample
Participants in the study were 30 high school girls, half from special education and half from general education. In Califomia, students who qualify for special education services as learning disabled or mildly mentally retarded (as defined by federal guidelines) are placed in classes for the learning handicapped. These classes are represented by two types of placements in the high school: (1) several periods of resource room, the remaining in mainstreamed settings; or (2) special class for the majority of the day. Ten of the subjects were in resource placements. Five were in the special class situation. Together these subjects ranged in age from 15 to 18 years (mean = 17.2) and in IQ from 59 to 86 (mean = 75). Ethnically, 80O/o were Anglo and 20~ were Hispanic. These 15 students represented the lowest functioning of the learning handicapped female population at the high school. The regular education girls were matched to the special education students by age/grade level and ethnicity. They were randomly selected from the available pool of study hall students and students in "typical" track academic classes (English, mathematics, biology; "typical" track classes are for students who may or may not be college bound and whose Stanine scores on the annual Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills place them between advanced and remedial classes).
266
Zetlin Procedure
The present study is part of a much larger investigation that examines the everyday lives o f mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents. The overall goal of the research is to understand the problems of adolescence from the viewpoint of the adolescents themselves, and how the lives of handicapped adolescents are similar or different from those of their nonhandicapped counterparts. Participant observation was conducted by the author at the high school over an entire school year. The author had extensive training and experience in participant observation techniques, which facilitated rapport development with the subjects. She was perceived by subjects as an adult friend who remained nonjudgmental and unrelated to the authority structure of the high school. Observation time was divided between the special education and regular education classrooms. The schedule was so arranged that subject could be observed in a classroom at least once every week for 55 minutes. Since classes varied in how much peer interaction was tolerated, classrooms were carefully selected according to those that maximized the opportunity to observe peer interaction (i.e., study halls, labs, shop classes). Additional contact with subjects was achieved as the author joined the students with their friends for lunch, or "hung out" with them and their friends after school at least once a month. To minimize reactivity, no notes were written while the students were observed. However, important observations and conversations were recorded immediately after contact with the author ended. These notes formed the basis of detailed field notes written after school hours, which included as much of what the author observed as possible. Reliability testing had previously demonstrated this procedure of note taking to be 80~ reliable, z Each subject's field notes covering the entire year were reviewed and every instance of a problematic peer interaction was selected out for subsequent content analysis. Problematic peer interactions were those in which subjects were involved in conflict with a friend or classmate as either victim or aggressor, and included a description of the actual disagreement as well as the spontaneous interaction strategy used by the subject in dealing with the problem situation. Each subject was coded as involved in "conflict" if there was any expressed verbal disagreement with another individual. Such conflict situations ranged f r o m mild disagreements to abusive threats and 2To ensure reliable recording of data, at the start of the research, two field researchers concurrently observed a subject and then independently constructed field notes. This was done for 10% of the subjects. Each set of field notes was compared by an independent rater for topics covered and accuracy of detail. Agreement ranged from 69 to 91% across all pairs of field notes (mean = 80%).
Managing Conflict
267
physical intimidation. A total o f 421 instances of involvement in problematic encounters were identified and these comprise the data base for the analysis that follows. RESULTS Three times as many troubled interactions were observed among the handicapped girls than the nonhandicapped females - there were 97 such instances within the nonhandicapped sample (mean = 6.5 per subject) and 324 within the handicapped sample (mean = 21.6 per subject). Of those conflicts involving handicapped subjects, 85% involved other handicapped peers while 15% were were between handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Of those involving nonhandicapped members, all were with nonhandicapped associates. Although the magnitude of difference in the degree of conflict between our samples may be due in part to the informal nature of the spcial education classrooms, which allow for more peer interaction, every attempt had been made to observe regular education girls as well in classroom settings that tolerated peer interaction. Thus this difference is striking and provides some evidence that more conflict does occur among the handicapped students. Two researchers familiar with the data independently sorted the problematic encounters into those in which subjects were victims (i.e., recipients of hotile action) and those in which subjects instigated conflict (i.e., acted with hostility toward another). Interrater agreement was 93%. As expected if the samples had been randomly selected, there was a similar distribution in the proportion o f victims and aggressors in each sample. There were 56 instances in which the nonhandicapped girls were victims compared to 41 instances in which they were aggressors (58/42%); there were 185 instances in which the handicapped females were victims compared to 139 in which they were aggressors (57/43 %). That approximately half the instances included victims or aggressors in each group is an indication that there is no strong bias in the sample. In those, 15% of the encounters in which conflict was between a handicapped and nonhandicapped female, handicapped girls were victims in 65% of the interactions and were aggressors in 35%. In terms of the consistency of subjects as victims or aggressors, a similar pattern was evident in each sample as well. Twenty-seven percent of the special education sample compared to 33%1 o f the regular education group were victims in more than 75% of their problematic encounters, 20% of the handicapped girls compared to 13 % of the nonhandicapped were aggressors in more than 75% of their troubled interactions, and 53% of both the handicapped and nonhandicapped subjects alternated between victim and aggressor (x 2 = .32, ns). These data not only indicate a similar distribution
268
Zetlin
in both samples but also indicate that special education girls are not always placed in the role of victim (although this is more likely when they interact with nonhandicapped peers); rather, they may be aggressors or even switch roles as the situation dictates. Each encounter was then submitted to a content analysis and independent judgements were made by the two researchers as to the nature of the conflict. Four m a j o r characterizations emerged f r o m the data: dominance/submission, selfishness, low tolerance, and betrayal/jealousy. Interrater agreement averaged 90~ across all 421 encounters. Disagreements were resolved through subsequent discussion. The four types of conflict are described below. Dominance/Submission. One party acts in an overtly aggressive way to express dominance over another (e.g., verbal or physical threats, demeaning accusations, escalated t e a s i n g - n a m e calling, ridiculing, gossiping). Selfishness. One party, motivated by moodiness, jealousy, or stubbornness, acts without regard for other's needs or feelings. Low Tolerance. One party displays low tolerance for annoying habits or customay ways o f other (e.g., undesirable characteristics, pestering manner, deviant practices). Betrayal/Jealousy. One party betrays or is dishonest, usually concerning a special boy/girl relationship, or reacts jealously over perceived threat to continued relationship. Chi-square analysis was significant, indicating that the two groups differ with respect to the types of conflict they engage in (X2 = 70.5, p < .001). Examination of the cell frequencies revealed that the handicapped girls were more likely to be embroiled in dominance/submission conflicts with peers, while the nonhandicapped females were more likely to be involved in disagreements due to selfishness or low tolerance (see Table I). Closer examination o f those conflict situations involveing a handicapped and nonhandicapped girl revealed that almost half (43~ were expressions of dominance/submission, with the handicapped female in the role of victim in 81~ of the encounters and aggressor in 1907o. Next, each problematic encounter was examined by the same two researchers to determine the specific interaction strategy employed by a subject during the troubled peer contact. Interrater agreement was 89.5 07oacross all encounters. Disagreements were resolved through subsequent discussion. The interaction strategies that emerged from the data were similar in nature to those described in studies using hypothetical conflict situations with children (Carlson, 1987; Rensher and Archer, 1983; Selman, 1981). Like the strategies children invoke, the strategies employed by our subjects progressed from those that are unilateral, where only one person can win, to strategies that negotiate the interpersonal conflict and integrate a "self" and "other"
Managing Conflict
269
Table I. Proportion of Special and Regular Education Subjects Involved in Each Type of Conflict Special education Types of conflict
Victim/aggressor
Dominance/submission Selfishness Low tolerance Betrayal/jealousy
.65 .19 .l I .04
(212)~ (61) (37) 04)
.39/.26 .09/.10 .06/.05 .02/.02
Regular education Victim/aggressor .18 .37 .30 .15
07) (36) (29) (15)
.12/.06 .14/.23 .24/.06 .08/.07
aRaw numbers in parentheses.
behavior change (i.e., compromise). Three kinds of strategies followed contacts in which subjects were victims and two kinds of strategies represented aggressive behavior. These are described below.
Subject as Victim
Egoistic Behavior. When teased or insulted, subjects responded with defensive self-assertions, ignored or withdrew from the aggressor, or avoided the potential aggressor in anticipation o f a problematic encounter. These actions, whether active or passive in nature, served only to meet their own needs and did not encourage a behavior change. Acquiescent Behavior. Subjects dealt with overt aggression in a submissive manner. They accepted the comments or actions of the aggressor without chellenge, thus failing to assert their needs or rights. Negotiative Behavior. Subjects made constructive attempts to alter the position of their "foes," which included meeting their own needs without infringing on the needs of the aggressor. They "talked out" the problem and negotiated a compromise or solution in which both parties were winners.
Subject as Aggressor
Egoistic Behavior. Subjects instigated troubled encounters by their antagonistic or overtly aggressive statements. They asserted their own will without regard for the feelings of their victims. Negotiative Behavior. Subjects attempted to "head off" impending interpersonal conflict by "discussing" the problem before it excalated. Their own needs as well as the needs of their associate were considered in the negotiated settlement.
270
Zetlin Table 11. Distribution of Interaction Strategies Within Special and Regular Education Samples Special education Subject as victim Egoistic
.45 (145)~
Acquiescent .I0 (32) Negotiative .02 (8) Subject as aggressor Egoistic .43 (138) Negotiative 0 (1) Total 100 (324) "Raw numbers in parentheses.
Regular education .34 (33)
.19 (18) .05 (5) .30 (30) .12 (ll) 100 (97)
Table II presents the distribution of interaction strategies for the special and regular education samples. Chi-square analysis revealed a significant group difference in strategies used when subjects were victims or aggressors (X2 = 39, p < .001). Examination of the cell frequencies revealed that when subjects were victims, the nonhandicapped were more likely to acquiesce while the handicapped were more likely to be egoistic, and when subjects were aggressors, the nonhandicapped were more likely to attempt negotiation while the handicapped were almost exclusively egoistic. DISCUSSION Differences between the learning handicapped and nonhandicapped samples were found in terms of degree of conflict as well as the types o f conflicts subjects engaged in and the specific interaction strategies invoked. The special e d u c a t i o n students were more likely to be involved in dominance/submission conflicts with peers, while disturbances between the regular education subjects were more likely to involve selfishness or low tolerance for peer's habits. Special education students typically occupy low-ranking or subordinate positions in the school setting, and therefore their frequent involvement in dominance conflicts is not surprising. Aggressive assertions of the sort observed functionally serve to give an individual dominance or power over another, and are more characteristic o f how children or early adolescents structure interpersonal relations than individuals at mid or late adolescence (Paikoff and Savin-Williams, 1983; Tesch, 1983). The high incidence of abusive encounters, especially among the handicapped girls, reflects the dominance hierarchy that exists within the school. In a related study, the existence o f such a group dominance hierarchy among the special education high schoolers had previously been identified (Zetlin, 1987). The actions o f aggressors serve to differentiate them from peers of lower standing and
Managing Conflict
271
reaffirm the undesirability of association with certain individuals. This appears the case for those who are consistently aggressors or victims, while for those who alternate roles, their vacillation underscores their struggle to maintain some status among their peers. There is less evidence of dominance aggression among the nonhandicapped girls, but they show a tendency toward conflicts reflecting selfishness or low tolerance. Their assertions are more indicative of bickering than power differentiation and may be further confirmation of the lack of empathy at this age level (see Zetlin and Murtaugh, 1987). It seems that while these girls may acknowledge the importance of sensitivity and tolerance as group values, ,they appear to suffer from lapses in generalized feelings of concern for the needs of friends. Their actions reflect an occasional unwillingness to compromise ideas or desires, or to submit to peer's discomforting ways. Their antagonistic assertions-while tied to mood changes, jealousy, or rivalry-are mostly short-lived. Answers to why so much conflict occurs especially among handicapped associates may be found in the specific interaction strategies invoked during troubled interactions. As victims, the handicapped girls were more likely to respond with self-defensive assertions or submissive actions (e.g., withdrawal, selective ignoring). The nonhandicapped subjects were more likely to acquiesce or give in to their harassers' demands. It may be that acquiescent behavior lessens the likelihood of future problematic contacts, whereas egoistic behavior is provocative and increases the probability of continued harassment. Acquiescence, which is more clearly evident among the nonhandicapped girls, may be a developmental stage between egoistic and negotiative behavior. In terms of aggressive action, when problems are developing between peers, the nonhandicapped girls may be more perceptive and thus more likely to approach the other party with the need to find a solution rather than allow continued escalation of the disagreement. The handicapped females are more confrontive, more likely to provoke peers with overtly aggressive actions or statements, which immediately places the other party in a defensive position and makes subsequent negotiation unlikely. This mode of interaction is more characteristic of younger children and those less competent socially. We have identified what seems a fundamental problem in the friendship relations of learning handicapped females and their associates. The "bullying" confrontations so frequent among handicapped girls present psychologists and educators with a difficult problem. Those professionals who work closely with this population must be more sensitive to these harmful behaviors (i.e., harmful with respect to the victim's self-esteem) and must work at shaping behavior in this area. Learning handicapped girls need to learn to be more empathetic toward peers, which includes taking the perspective of others.
272
Zetlin
F u r t h e r research is n e e d e d to f o c u s o n the processes t h a t o p e r a t e d u r i n g f r i e n s h i p relations. It is o n l y t h r o u g h s u c h p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d research t h a t we m a y g a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e effects o f f r i e n d s h i p o n development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e a u t h o r is g r a t e f u l to A s h r a f H o s s e i n i for her a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g d a t a a n a l y s i s , a n d M i c h a e l M u r t a u g h a n d G a l e M o r r i s o n for their h e l p f u l c o m m e n t s d u r i n g the w r i t i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t .
REFERENCES
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Develop. 53: 1447-1460. Carlson, C. I. (1987). Social interaction goals and strategies of children with learning disabilities. J. Learning Disabil. 20: 306-311. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Barbigian, H., Izzo, L. D., and Trost, M. A. 0973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41 : 438-446. Dudley-Marling, C. C., and Edmiaston, R. (1985). Social status of learning disabled children and adolescents: A review. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 8: 189-204. Hill, J. P. (1980). The family. In Johnson, M. (Ed.), Toward Adolescence: TheMlddle School Years. The Seventy-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hunter, F. T. (1984). Socializing procedures in parent-child and friendship relations during adolescence. Develop. Psychol. 20: 1092-I099. Kronick, D. (1978). An examination of psychosocial aspects of learning disabled adolescents. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 1: 86-93. Paikoff, R. L., and Savin-Williams, R. C. (1983). An exploratory study of dominance interaction among adolescent females at a summer camp. J. Youth Adoles. 12: 419-433. Patterson, J. M., and McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. J. Adoles. 10: 163-186. Perlmutter, B. F., Crocker, J., Cordray, D., and Garstecki, D. (1983). Sociometric status and related personality characteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 6: 20-30. Renshaw, P. D., and Asher, S. R. (1983). Children's goals and strategies for social interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quart. 29: 353-374. Selman, R. L. (1981). The development of interpersonal competence: The role of understanding in conduct. Develop. Rev. 1: 401-422. Selman, R. L., and Demorest, A. P. (1984). Observing troubled children's interpersonal negotiation strategies: Implications of and for a developmental model. Child Develop. 55: 288-304. Stainback, W., and Stainback, S. (1987). Facilitating friendships. Educat. Train MentalRetard. 22: 18-25. Tesch, S. A. (1983). Review of friendship development across the life span. Human Develop. 26: 266-276. Zetlin, A. G. (1987). The social status of mildly learning handicapped high school students. Psychol. Schools 24: 165-173. Zetlin, A. G., and Murtaugh, M. (May, 1987). Friendship patterns of mildly learning handicapped and nonhandicapped high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Los Angeles, CA.
Managing Conflict: Interactionai Strategies of Learning Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Adolescent Girls Andrea G. Zetlin I
Received November 24, 1987; accepted October 25, 1988
Naturalistic observations of learning handicapped and nonhandicapped high school girls were conducted to explore differences in the types and effectiveness of interaction strategies used during troubled peer contacts. Findings indicated that learning handicapped girls engaged in more conflict than nonhandicapped females and that this conflict generally involved dominance/submission themes and was managed in ways which increased the probability of future conflict. Conflict involving nonhandicapped girls mostly focused on selfishness or low tolerance for peer's habits and was handled in ways which lowered the likelihood o f future disagreements. Implications o f these findings with regard to the social standing of the learning handicapped girls in the school setting is discussed.
INTRODUCTION The quality o f interpersonal relationships during the adolescent life stage has been s h o w n to be a valid p r e d i c t o r o f a d u l t f u n c t i o n i n g ( C o w e n et al., 1973). A d o l e s c e n t f r i e n d s h i p s serve as a f o u n d a t i o n for e g a l i t a r i a n r e l a t i o n ships with spouses, n e i g h b o r s , o r c o - w o r k e r s in later a d u l t life. T h e y are also i m p o r t a n t resources for a d o l e s c e n t i n d i v i d u a t i o n a n d i d e n t i t y d e v e l o p m e n t
This research was supported by Grant No. HD23097 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. ~Research Associate Professor in the School of Education, University of Southern California, Waite Phillips Hall-- 303, University Park, Los Angeles, 90089-0031. Received her Ed.D. from Columbia University. Current interest is social competence and family relations of learning handicapped populations. 263 0047-2891/89/0600-0263506.00/0 9 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation
264
Zetlin
(Berndt, 1982; Patterson and McCubbin, 1987). Through the young person's association with peers, opportunities are provided to relate intimately with someone outside the family and to experience relationships in which both members can express opinions and be listened to (Berndt, 1982; Hill, 1980; Hunter, 1984). Studies examining friendship patterns among mildly learning handicapped adolescents (i.e., learning disabled and mildly mentally retarded) have consistently found less developed and more troubled relations between peers. Although authors note variability within the population- with at least some learning handicapped youngsters achieving stable and mutually responsive peer associations--the majority are found to be at risk for poor interpersonal relations (Dubley-Marling and Edmiaston, 1985; Perlmutter et al., 1983; Zetlin, 1987). Among the reasons presumed responsible are deficits in social perception leading to inappropriate behavior (Kronick, 1978) and being more aggressive than nondisabled peers in exerting influence over others (Perlmutter et al., 1983). A recent study by Zetlin and Murtaugh (1987) compared the friendship patterns of learning handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents in terms of intimacy, empathy, and stability. They found fewer friendships and more discordant associations within the handicapped sample. Their data also revealed less evidence of intimacy and empathy between the handicapped teens and their peers, although relatively low levels of empathy were observed in both groups. Examination of why friendships ended and why so much bickering existed turned up no behaviors specific to the handicapped or nonhandicapped samples. Rather, both groups displayed similar behaviors leading to peer disturbances. These included undesirable personality characteristics such as being bossy or moody, having a stuck-up attitude, being a rumor monger, and being a liar or "two-faced." Research with children indicates that youngesters with friendship difficulties display problematic strategies that destabilize interactions with peers (Selman and Demorest, 1984). These difficulties appear due to socialcognitive competence deficits that limit their behavioral effectiveness. Younger vs. older and unpopular vs. popular children tend to select strategies that are less normative, less prosocial, less effective at solving the problem, and in conflict situations, more aggressive than their counterparts (Carlson, 1987; Renshaw and Asher, 1983). Stainback and Stainback (1987) contend that the ability to resolve conflict effectively is one of the most difficult skills needed to master in forming and maintaining friendships. Those less competent socially tend to deal with conflict in either an "overtly aggressive or submissive manner rather than by constructive attempts to meet their own needs without infringing on the needs or rights of others" (p. 21). The question remains as to the types and effectiveness of interaction strategies used by adolescents during troubled peer contacts, and whether there are group
Managing Conflict
265
differences in the strategies that learning handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents employ that may account for the less developed friendship patterns of learning handicapped adolescents. The present study was designed to build on the findings of Zetlin and Murtaugh's (1987) exploration of friendship patterns. Specifically, analysis focused on why the majority of peer associations within the learning handicapped and nonhandicapped samples were short-lived and marked by conflict. In this study, adolescent girls (15 learning handicapped and 15 nonhandicapped) comprise the sample. Their overt behavioral interaction styles in handling problematic peer encounters are examined and compared. The study has been limited to female adolescents because (a) more affiliative behavior is expected of adolescent girls than boys and (b) adolescent girls rely more on peer support than boys (Patterson and McCubbin, 1987). Unlike most studies investigating interpersonal strategies that rely on a hypothetical-situations interview method in which subjects are asked to describe how they would handle various problematic encounters, this study is unique in that observational data of troubled interactions in real-life contexts form the data base.
METHOD Sample
Participants in the study were 30 high school girls, half from special education and half from general education. In Califomia, students who qualify for special education services as learning disabled or mildly mentally retarded (as defined by federal guidelines) are placed in classes for the learning handicapped. These classes are represented by two types of placements in the high school: (1) several periods of resource room, the remaining in mainstreamed settings; or (2) special class for the majority of the day. Ten of the subjects were in resource placements. Five were in the special class situation. Together these subjects ranged in age from 15 to 18 years (mean = 17.2) and in IQ from 59 to 86 (mean = 75). Ethnically, 80O/o were Anglo and 20~ were Hispanic. These 15 students represented the lowest functioning of the learning handicapped female population at the high school. The regular education girls were matched to the special education students by age/grade level and ethnicity. They were randomly selected from the available pool of study hall students and students in "typical" track academic classes (English, mathematics, biology; "typical" track classes are for students who may or may not be college bound and whose Stanine scores on the annual Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills place them between advanced and remedial classes).
266
Zetlin Procedure
The present study is part of a much larger investigation that examines the everyday lives o f mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped adolescents. The overall goal of the research is to understand the problems of adolescence from the viewpoint of the adolescents themselves, and how the lives of handicapped adolescents are similar or different from those of their nonhandicapped counterparts. Participant observation was conducted by the author at the high school over an entire school year. The author had extensive training and experience in participant observation techniques, which facilitated rapport development with the subjects. She was perceived by subjects as an adult friend who remained nonjudgmental and unrelated to the authority structure of the high school. Observation time was divided between the special education and regular education classrooms. The schedule was so arranged that subject could be observed in a classroom at least once every week for 55 minutes. Since classes varied in how much peer interaction was tolerated, classrooms were carefully selected according to those that maximized the opportunity to observe peer interaction (i.e., study halls, labs, shop classes). Additional contact with subjects was achieved as the author joined the students with their friends for lunch, or "hung out" with them and their friends after school at least once a month. To minimize reactivity, no notes were written while the students were observed. However, important observations and conversations were recorded immediately after contact with the author ended. These notes formed the basis of detailed field notes written after school hours, which included as much of what the author observed as possible. Reliability testing had previously demonstrated this procedure of note taking to be 80~ reliable, z Each subject's field notes covering the entire year were reviewed and every instance of a problematic peer interaction was selected out for subsequent content analysis. Problematic peer interactions were those in which subjects were involved in conflict with a friend or classmate as either victim or aggressor, and included a description of the actual disagreement as well as the spontaneous interaction strategy used by the subject in dealing with the problem situation. Each subject was coded as involved in "conflict" if there was any expressed verbal disagreement with another individual. Such conflict situations ranged f r o m mild disagreements to abusive threats and 2To ensure reliable recording of data, at the start of the research, two field researchers concurrently observed a subject and then independently constructed field notes. This was done for 10% of the subjects. Each set of field notes was compared by an independent rater for topics covered and accuracy of detail. Agreement ranged from 69 to 91% across all pairs of field notes (mean = 80%).
Managing Conflict
267
physical intimidation. A total o f 421 instances of involvement in problematic encounters were identified and these comprise the data base for the analysis that follows. RESULTS Three times as many troubled interactions were observed among the handicapped girls than the nonhandicapped females - there were 97 such instances within the nonhandicapped sample (mean = 6.5 per subject) and 324 within the handicapped sample (mean = 21.6 per subject). Of those conflicts involving handicapped subjects, 85% involved other handicapped peers while 15% were were between handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Of those involving nonhandicapped members, all were with nonhandicapped associates. Although the magnitude of difference in the degree of conflict between our samples may be due in part to the informal nature of the spcial education classrooms, which allow for more peer interaction, every attempt had been made to observe regular education girls as well in classroom settings that tolerated peer interaction. Thus this difference is striking and provides some evidence that more conflict does occur among the handicapped students. Two researchers familiar with the data independently sorted the problematic encounters into those in which subjects were victims (i.e., recipients of hotile action) and those in which subjects instigated conflict (i.e., acted with hostility toward another). Interrater agreement was 93%. As expected if the samples had been randomly selected, there was a similar distribution in the proportion o f victims and aggressors in each sample. There were 56 instances in which the nonhandicapped girls were victims compared to 41 instances in which they were aggressors (58/42%); there were 185 instances in which the handicapped females were victims compared to 139 in which they were aggressors (57/43 %). That approximately half the instances included victims or aggressors in each group is an indication that there is no strong bias in the sample. In those, 15% of the encounters in which conflict was between a handicapped and nonhandicapped female, handicapped girls were victims in 65% of the interactions and were aggressors in 35%. In terms of the consistency of subjects as victims or aggressors, a similar pattern was evident in each sample as well. Twenty-seven percent of the special education sample compared to 33%1 o f the regular education group were victims in more than 75% of their problematic encounters, 20% of the handicapped girls compared to 13 % of the nonhandicapped were aggressors in more than 75% of their troubled interactions, and 53% of both the handicapped and nonhandicapped subjects alternated between victim and aggressor (x 2 = .32, ns). These data not only indicate a similar distribution
268
Zetlin
in both samples but also indicate that special education girls are not always placed in the role of victim (although this is more likely when they interact with nonhandicapped peers); rather, they may be aggressors or even switch roles as the situation dictates. Each encounter was then submitted to a content analysis and independent judgements were made by the two researchers as to the nature of the conflict. Four m a j o r characterizations emerged f r o m the data: dominance/submission, selfishness, low tolerance, and betrayal/jealousy. Interrater agreement averaged 90~ across all 421 encounters. Disagreements were resolved through subsequent discussion. The four types of conflict are described below. Dominance/Submission. One party acts in an overtly aggressive way to express dominance over another (e.g., verbal or physical threats, demeaning accusations, escalated t e a s i n g - n a m e calling, ridiculing, gossiping). Selfishness. One party, motivated by moodiness, jealousy, or stubbornness, acts without regard for other's needs or feelings. Low Tolerance. One party displays low tolerance for annoying habits or customay ways o f other (e.g., undesirable characteristics, pestering manner, deviant practices). Betrayal/Jealousy. One party betrays or is dishonest, usually concerning a special boy/girl relationship, or reacts jealously over perceived threat to continued relationship. Chi-square analysis was significant, indicating that the two groups differ with respect to the types of conflict they engage in (X2 = 70.5, p < .001). Examination of the cell frequencies revealed that the handicapped girls were more likely to be embroiled in dominance/submission conflicts with peers, while the nonhandicapped females were more likely to be involved in disagreements due to selfishness or low tolerance (see Table I). Closer examination o f those conflict situations involveing a handicapped and nonhandicapped girl revealed that almost half (43~ were expressions of dominance/submission, with the handicapped female in the role of victim in 81~ of the encounters and aggressor in 1907o. Next, each problematic encounter was examined by the same two researchers to determine the specific interaction strategy employed by a subject during the troubled peer contact. Interrater agreement was 89.5 07oacross all encounters. Disagreements were resolved through subsequent discussion. The interaction strategies that emerged from the data were similar in nature to those described in studies using hypothetical conflict situations with children (Carlson, 1987; Rensher and Archer, 1983; Selman, 1981). Like the strategies children invoke, the strategies employed by our subjects progressed from those that are unilateral, where only one person can win, to strategies that negotiate the interpersonal conflict and integrate a "self" and "other"
Managing Conflict
269
Table I. Proportion of Special and Regular Education Subjects Involved in Each Type of Conflict Special education Types of conflict
Victim/aggressor
Dominance/submission Selfishness Low tolerance Betrayal/jealousy
.65 .19 .l I .04
(212)~ (61) (37) 04)
.39/.26 .09/.10 .06/.05 .02/.02
Regular education Victim/aggressor .18 .37 .30 .15
07) (36) (29) (15)
.12/.06 .14/.23 .24/.06 .08/.07
aRaw numbers in parentheses.
behavior change (i.e., compromise). Three kinds of strategies followed contacts in which subjects were victims and two kinds of strategies represented aggressive behavior. These are described below.
Subject as Victim
Egoistic Behavior. When teased or insulted, subjects responded with defensive self-assertions, ignored or withdrew from the aggressor, or avoided the potential aggressor in anticipation o f a problematic encounter. These actions, whether active or passive in nature, served only to meet their own needs and did not encourage a behavior change. Acquiescent Behavior. Subjects dealt with overt aggression in a submissive manner. They accepted the comments or actions of the aggressor without chellenge, thus failing to assert their needs or rights. Negotiative Behavior. Subjects made constructive attempts to alter the position of their "foes," which included meeting their own needs without infringing on the needs of the aggressor. They "talked out" the problem and negotiated a compromise or solution in which both parties were winners.
Subject as Aggressor
Egoistic Behavior. Subjects instigated troubled encounters by their antagonistic or overtly aggressive statements. They asserted their own will without regard for the feelings of their victims. Negotiative Behavior. Subjects attempted to "head off" impending interpersonal conflict by "discussing" the problem before it excalated. Their own needs as well as the needs of their associate were considered in the negotiated settlement.
270
Zetlin Table 11. Distribution of Interaction Strategies Within Special and Regular Education Samples Special education Subject as victim Egoistic
.45 (145)~
Acquiescent .I0 (32) Negotiative .02 (8) Subject as aggressor Egoistic .43 (138) Negotiative 0 (1) Total 100 (324) "Raw numbers in parentheses.
Regular education .34 (33)
.19 (18) .05 (5) .30 (30) .12 (ll) 100 (97)
Table II presents the distribution of interaction strategies for the special and regular education samples. Chi-square analysis revealed a significant group difference in strategies used when subjects were victims or aggressors (X2 = 39, p < .001). Examination of the cell frequencies revealed that when subjects were victims, the nonhandicapped were more likely to acquiesce while the handicapped were more likely to be egoistic, and when subjects were aggressors, the nonhandicapped were more likely to attempt negotiation while the handicapped were almost exclusively egoistic. DISCUSSION Differences between the learning handicapped and nonhandicapped samples were found in terms of degree of conflict as well as the types o f conflicts subjects engaged in and the specific interaction strategies invoked. The special e d u c a t i o n students were more likely to be involved in dominance/submission conflicts with peers, while disturbances between the regular education subjects were more likely to involve selfishness or low tolerance for peer's habits. Special education students typically occupy low-ranking or subordinate positions in the school setting, and therefore their frequent involvement in dominance conflicts is not surprising. Aggressive assertions of the sort observed functionally serve to give an individual dominance or power over another, and are more characteristic o f how children or early adolescents structure interpersonal relations than individuals at mid or late adolescence (Paikoff and Savin-Williams, 1983; Tesch, 1983). The high incidence of abusive encounters, especially among the handicapped girls, reflects the dominance hierarchy that exists within the school. In a related study, the existence o f such a group dominance hierarchy among the special education high schoolers had previously been identified (Zetlin, 1987). The actions o f aggressors serve to differentiate them from peers of lower standing and
Managing Conflict
271
reaffirm the undesirability of association with certain individuals. This appears the case for those who are consistently aggressors or victims, while for those who alternate roles, their vacillation underscores their struggle to maintain some status among their peers. There is less evidence of dominance aggression among the nonhandicapped girls, but they show a tendency toward conflicts reflecting selfishness or low tolerance. Their assertions are more indicative of bickering than power differentiation and may be further confirmation of the lack of empathy at this age level (see Zetlin and Murtaugh, 1987). It seems that while these girls may acknowledge the importance of sensitivity and tolerance as group values, ,they appear to suffer from lapses in generalized feelings of concern for the needs of friends. Their actions reflect an occasional unwillingness to compromise ideas or desires, or to submit to peer's discomforting ways. Their antagonistic assertions-while tied to mood changes, jealousy, or rivalry-are mostly short-lived. Answers to why so much conflict occurs especially among handicapped associates may be found in the specific interaction strategies invoked during troubled interactions. As victims, the handicapped girls were more likely to respond with self-defensive assertions or submissive actions (e.g., withdrawal, selective ignoring). The nonhandicapped subjects were more likely to acquiesce or give in to their harassers' demands. It may be that acquiescent behavior lessens the likelihood of future problematic contacts, whereas egoistic behavior is provocative and increases the probability of continued harassment. Acquiescence, which is more clearly evident among the nonhandicapped girls, may be a developmental stage between egoistic and negotiative behavior. In terms of aggressive action, when problems are developing between peers, the nonhandicapped girls may be more perceptive and thus more likely to approach the other party with the need to find a solution rather than allow continued escalation of the disagreement. The handicapped females are more confrontive, more likely to provoke peers with overtly aggressive actions or statements, which immediately places the other party in a defensive position and makes subsequent negotiation unlikely. This mode of interaction is more characteristic of younger children and those less competent socially. We have identified what seems a fundamental problem in the friendship relations of learning handicapped females and their associates. The "bullying" confrontations so frequent among handicapped girls present psychologists and educators with a difficult problem. Those professionals who work closely with this population must be more sensitive to these harmful behaviors (i.e., harmful with respect to the victim's self-esteem) and must work at shaping behavior in this area. Learning handicapped girls need to learn to be more empathetic toward peers, which includes taking the perspective of others.
272
Zetlin
F u r t h e r research is n e e d e d to f o c u s o n the processes t h a t o p e r a t e d u r i n g f r i e n s h i p relations. It is o n l y t h r o u g h s u c h p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d research t h a t we m a y g a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e effects o f f r i e n d s h i p o n development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e a u t h o r is g r a t e f u l to A s h r a f H o s s e i n i for her a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g d a t a a n a l y s i s , a n d M i c h a e l M u r t a u g h a n d G a l e M o r r i s o n for their h e l p f u l c o m m e n t s d u r i n g the w r i t i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t .
REFERENCES
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Develop. 53: 1447-1460. Carlson, C. I. (1987). Social interaction goals and strategies of children with learning disabilities. J. Learning Disabil. 20: 306-311. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Barbigian, H., Izzo, L. D., and Trost, M. A. 0973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41 : 438-446. Dudley-Marling, C. C., and Edmiaston, R. (1985). Social status of learning disabled children and adolescents: A review. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 8: 189-204. Hill, J. P. (1980). The family. In Johnson, M. (Ed.), Toward Adolescence: TheMlddle School Years. The Seventy-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hunter, F. T. (1984). Socializing procedures in parent-child and friendship relations during adolescence. Develop. Psychol. 20: 1092-I099. Kronick, D. (1978). An examination of psychosocial aspects of learning disabled adolescents. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 1: 86-93. Paikoff, R. L., and Savin-Williams, R. C. (1983). An exploratory study of dominance interaction among adolescent females at a summer camp. J. Youth Adoles. 12: 419-433. Patterson, J. M., and McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. J. Adoles. 10: 163-186. Perlmutter, B. F., Crocker, J., Cordray, D., and Garstecki, D. (1983). Sociometric status and related personality characteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 6: 20-30. Renshaw, P. D., and Asher, S. R. (1983). Children's goals and strategies for social interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quart. 29: 353-374. Selman, R. L. (1981). The development of interpersonal competence: The role of understanding in conduct. Develop. Rev. 1: 401-422. Selman, R. L., and Demorest, A. P. (1984). Observing troubled children's interpersonal negotiation strategies: Implications of and for a developmental model. Child Develop. 55: 288-304. Stainback, W., and Stainback, S. (1987). Facilitating friendships. Educat. Train MentalRetard. 22: 18-25. Tesch, S. A. (1983). Review of friendship development across the life span. Human Develop. 26: 266-276. Zetlin, A. G. (1987). The social status of mildly learning handicapped high school students. Psychol. Schools 24: 165-173. Zetlin, A. G., and Murtaugh, M. (May, 1987). Friendship patterns of mildly learning handicapped and nonhandicapped high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Los Angeles, CA.
