By definition, sibling relationships are mixed-age groups; peers are usually about the sartre age. Is the younger sibling's behavior a function of age or status in the relationship? In our study, we did not test this question directly. However we did observe younger and older peer dyads. Thus, we can determine if younger children, in general, protest less often than older children. Also, it is known that social interaction with peers increases with age (Howes, 1987). Perhaps, then, conflict will occur less often in the younger dyads.

Gender may affect both the frequency of conflict and the amount of aggression within conflict. According to Maccoby and Jacklin (1987), boys engage in a behavioral style which makes them particularly likely to come into conflict. Boys are rougher and engage in more body contact, and they engage in more verbal taunting and physical fighting than girls. Boys also lend to assert their dominance, use commands and threats, and refuse to comply in their interactions (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). Boys also tend to use more power assertion than girls (Hartup, 1992). On the other hand, girls, as opposed to boys, are more likely to criticize in acceptable ways and agree with their partners (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). Also, they are more likely to use explanation and collaboration in reaching a solution than boys (Hartup & Laursen, 1993; Sheldon, 1990). Thus, one would expect less conflict in girl-girl than boy-boy dyads. What about mixed-gender dyads? Based on Maccoby and Jacklin's (1987) review, one would expect that such dyads would be highly incompatible and, therefore, prone to conflict. It is a welI-documented fact that children prefer same-gender partners (Alexander & Hines, 1994). However, if less interaction occurs in cross-gender dyads, fewer conflicts may occur. Indeed, Maccoby and Jacklin (1987) found that when provided with a male partner, young girls avoid interaction rather than play with boys.

In their landmark study of gender differences, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) claimed that boys are consistently more aggressive than girls. However, they have been criticized for exaggerating this difference (Fausto-Sterling, 1985). Fausto-Sterling (1985) also points out that because findings of no difference (supporting the null hypothesis) are often not reported in scientific journals, we have a distorted view of aggression. In addition, Eagly and Steffen (1986) have claimed that in adults gender differences in aggression are minimal. They argue that situational factors are much more influential on aggression than gender. Several studies of children's conflicts show very low levels of aggression (Corsaro & Rizzo, 1990; Hartup & Laursen, 1993).

It has been argued that boys and girls grow up in physically different environments, which have different socialization effects (Picariello, Greenberg, & Pillemer, 1990; Rheingold & Cook, 1975). For children a highly salient aspect of the physical environment is the toys they play with. Do stereotypically masculine toys promote ac-tire and/or aggressive play? If so, we would expect more conflict, and more aggression in conflict when masculine, as opposed to feminine, toys are present. Toys, whether they be masculine or feminine, may also promote either inpidual problem-solving play or social interaction. Well conflict arise in struggles for possession over the inpidualistic toys, or is conflict more likely to occur within the social interaction involving social toys?

The present study was designed to describe the influence of these variables on conflict. To examine the variables we conducted two separate studies: one of peer interaction and one of sibling interaction. For peers, we had same- and mixed-gender dyads at two age groups, 3- and 4-year-olds. For siblings, we had same- and mixed-gender dyads of preschool-age children with their toddler siblings. In both studies, we varied the setting so that children were exposed to stereo typically masculine and femine toys, as well as inpidualistic and social toys.