This thesis examined relations between preschoolers's oppositional strategies and their social cognitive skills and behavioral competence. There is a gap between theoretical formulation and empirical investigation regarding children's oppositional behaviors in the literature. Although positive functions of oppositional behavior have been proposed by theorists, research has focused primarily on its negative nature. The present study intended to show that opposition was not a homogeneous construct and that certain noncompliant strategies were not destructive but rather healthy and desirable. Forty-nine mothers and their preschool children (age 3 to 5) participated. Mother-child interaction data were collected using naturalistic observation in a structured setting. Children's oppositional strategies were classified into four categories: aversive opposition (e.g., temper tantrums), passive noncompliance (e.g., ignoring), simple refusal, and negotiation. While social cognitive skills (perspective-taking and social problem-solving) were measured through experiments, behavioral competence was indexed using a questionnaire filled by day-care teachers. The data were analyzed using correlation and regression procedures. Results showed that aversive opposition was more likely to be seen in the children who were less able to see other's feelings and to generate problem-solving solutions, and who were less competent in a day-care setting. Passive noncompliance was more likely employed by the children who did poorly at a day-care setting, however, they were not necessarily deficient in social cognitive skills. Negotiators were more likely to be the children who were better at affective role-taking and social problem-solving and were more competent in a day-care setting. Finally, simple refusal had a weak and ambiguous relation to social cognition and competence. These results and their implications were discussed in the light of the existing literature on children's opposition. / Graduate