Post-conflict non-affiliative behavioural strategies and subsequent social interaction in preschool boys with language impairment in comparison to preschool boys with typical language skills

Abstract

Conflicts between 20 boys (4-6 years old) with typical language development (TL) and between 11 boys (4-7 years old) with Language Impairment (LI) were examined in naturalistic preschool settings. Post-conflict aggression, passive withdrawal (auto-manipulation/irrelevant vocalizations) and active withdrawal (leaving conflict scene) were examined in relation to preceding behavioural situations and the likelihood of social interaction after conflict management. The boys with TL tended to display aggression to a greater extent than the boys with LI in conflicts with pre-conflict social interaction and in the role of conflict victim. However it was revealed that the boys with TL displayed passive withdrawal significantly more often in conflicts without pre-conflict social interaction than in conflicts with pre-conflict interaction. When in the role of conflict victims the boys with LI conducted active withdrawal significantly more than the boys with TL. Reconciliation (former opponents exchange friendly contact following conflict termination) has been shown to facilitate social interaction after terminated conflict management. However, this link appeared to be weakened significantly when initial post-conflict responses were active withdrawal (more representative LI strategy) than after reconciled conflicts without active withdrawal. Clinical treatment and educational intervention should address emotional regulation and referential communication to facilitate developmental social interaction.

Reviewing the link between language abilities and peer relations in children with developmental language disorder: The importance of children’s own perspectives

“…Further, data from observations show that it is not the frequency or length of utterance that matter to peers, but rather the poor social use of language and low linguistic sophistication make a difference (DeKroon et al., 2002; Salmenlinna & Laksoo, 2020). These findings are backed up by self-reports, task-based and observation studies, confirming the breadth of vocabulary knowledge as minimally related to how successful children with DLD are at using language to reconcile peer conflict (Bakopoulou & Dockrell, 2016; Horowitz et al., 2005, 2008; Marton et al., 2005). It is important therefore that researchers acknowledge that in the context of the SAM, ‘verbal resources’ includes not only syntactic and semantic language but also social and linguistic pragmatics.…”

“…Regarding the good practice of participatory studies with children, the reported observation studies did not specify these aspects of their research. In the naturalistic observation category, only Horowitz et al.’s (2005, 2006, 2008) mentioned obtaining informed consent from parents and children themselves. Perhaps the use of filming might have prompted researchers to report on this ethical aspect of the study.…”

“…Almost all naturalistic observations investigated the social functioning of children with DLD in the classroom or playroom. The social interaction behaviour and language of children with DLD were assessed with the focus on friendship formation (Guralnick, Gottman, et al., 1996), play behaviours (Guralnick et al., 2006), conversation patterns (Hadley & Rice, 1991; Henton, 1998), conflict resolution (Horowitz et al., 2005, 2006, 2008) or general interactions (Fujiki et al., 2001; McCabe & Marshall, 2006; Rice et al., 1991). Two studies evaluated interventions aiming to enhance peer-group entry behaviours and initiations (Beilinson & Olswang, 2003; Schuele et al., 1995).…”

“…Some studies targeted integrative settings, where children of different language abilities interact together (e.g. Beilinson & Olswang, 2003; Fujiki et al., 2001; Hadley & Rice, 1991; McCabe & Marshall, 2006; Schuele et al., 1995), and others focused on comparing groups of children with similar levels of language and communication (Henton, 1998; Horowitz et al., 2005, 2006, 2008). Guralnick and colleagues (Guralnick et al., 2006; Guralnick, Connor, et al., 1996; Guralnick, Gottman, et al., 1996; Guralnick & Hammond, 1999) conducted their research in both settings – mainstream or inclusive groups, as well as specialised groups of only children with similar developmental profiles.…”

What is the nature of peer interactions in children with language disorders? A qualitative study of parent and practitioner views

“…It is unsurprising that peer conflict resolution would be harder for children with poor expressive language skills. To successfully repair conflict situations, children must negotiate, assert their position in a way which is not aggressive and should not surrender their own boundaries (Horowitz et al., 2008). The frequent peer conflicts children with LDs are observed to have are likely exacerbated if children misinterpret the intentions of their peers in the situation leading up to the conflict.…”