A common strategy parents use to justify their point of view during parent–child conflict is conventional reasoning, which focuses on child obedience to authority. In this brief report, we examined mothers’ use of conventional justification during mother–child conflict discussions in relation to the resolution reached and children’s behavior problems and temperamental reactivity concurrently and longitudinally. Participants included 190 mothers and their 5- to 7-year-old children. Dyads engaged in a conflict discussion task in the laboratory, which was coded for mothers’ use of conventional justification and the type of resolution reached. Mothers reported on child behavior problems and temperamental reactivity then and 1 year later. Results showed mothers used more conventional reasoning during conflict discussions that resulted in a win/loss resolution compared to a compromise. Mothers’ conventional reasoning was concurrently associated with more child externalizing behaviors and temperamental reactivity at Year 1. Mothers’ conventional reasoning did not relate to changes in child behaviors over time. Findings are discussed in terms of mothers’ conceptions of parental authority and possible directions of effects.

父母在亲子冲突期间用来证明观点正确性的一种常见策略是传统推理，其重点是儿童对权威的服从。在这份简短的报告中，我们检查了母亲在母子冲突讨论期间对传统理由的使用，与达成的解决方案以及孩子的行为问题和气质反应性同时和纵向相关。参加者包括190名母亲及其5至7岁的孩子。Dyads在实验室从事冲突讨论任务，该代码被编码为母亲使用常规理由和达成的解决方式。那时和一年后，母亲们报告了孩子的行为问题和气质反应性。结果表明，在冲突讨论中，母亲使用了更为常规的推理，与妥协相比，解决了赢/输。在第一年，母亲的常规推理与更多的儿童外在行为和气质反应性相关联。母亲的常规推理与儿童行为随时间的变化无关。研究结果从母亲对父母权威的观念以及可能的影响方向进行了讨论。