Class Notes (1,200,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSG (50,000)
PSY (4,000)
Almas (9)
Lecture 9

PSY311H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Social Learning Theory, Longitudinal Study, Observational Learning

Course Code

of 5
Lecture 9 & 10
Aggression & Antisocial Conduct
Nov 10th, 2008
- not argumentative paper
provide overview or summary of the current state of research
after summary, make suggestion for the next study that should be made
Peer Relations
family and peer relations are interdependent
the contribution of each varies across development
smile, babble towards infants of the same age
sharing of objects
1st yr: reciprocal exchanges
back and forth
early prosocial behaviour ± ie. sharing, helping
coordinatedd interactions
imitation (mutual)
most frequently occured to familiar kids (same age, friends)
proactive aggression frequently are at risk for developing external delinquency
shift from non-social play to parrallel -> associative -> cooperative play
talked about in text
kids work together towards mutual goal
kids playing style is not indicative of future outcome
gender segregation
preference to same sex age mates
Middle Childhood
all kids exposed to similar age children b/c they are going to school
start to form peer groups: group of kids who does the same activities on a regular basis
cliques: smaller group of kids than peer groups, and group membership is very unstable, kids
can be part of more than 1 clique at the same time
prosocial behaviour increase
bulk of freetime with friends
Peer Relations Research
peer nominations
asked to choose 3 best friends and see if the kids chosen also chose them
rate who they liked the most and least
Direct observations
brought into the lab and observe the interactions
Jen Megs, Class Roman
relationship b/w positive peer relations and adolescence substance use and delinquent behaviour
aked gr. 7 students to fill out questionnaires
ie. how many time have you drank beer, champaigne, etc.
how well do you know your friends etc.
longitudinal study, collected questionnaire once every year for 4 yrs
substance use and involvement with peers and dating increased from gr.7 ± gr. 10
substance use is positively related to peer relations over time
conclusion: drinking more = more friends
research focus on friendship and general acceptance by peer group
friendships: mutual enjoyable and reciprocal
start off as kid who enjoy the same activities in preschool year
as kids gets older they are more concerned with loyalty, trust and other psychological constructs
they will attach this to their expectations of their friends
adolescences are more concerned with intimacy (sharing secrets etc.)
friends become another secure base
kids who are more securely attached has higher quality friendships
consequence of having close friends
more prosocial
agreeable, social, active
overtly emotional do not have close friends
relational oriented strategies
goal is maintain relationship
fulfils intimacy and companionship need
increase in self-esteem
better attitude toward school
prepares us for later intimate relationship (romantic partners)
friends provide support
being a good friend helps us develop empathy and elicit prosocial behaviour
but kids who are aggressive and antisocial also make friends with the same character which
leads to reinforcement of delinquency
negative peer groups: begin as early as preschool and are well established by adolescence
kids who do not have close friends do not have regulating emotion skills but this can only be
learned through friends
Parental influence
monitor interaction b/w kids and help resolve conflicts
help set up environments where kids can interact with each other, play dates etc.
indirect monitoring is related to better outcome (how well kids were liked in preschool) than
direct monitoring
but this research does not predict cause, it might be the other way around, ie. kid is less liked, so
parent must be inside the room
coach kids on social interaction
parents who are negative and angry have kids who act the same way
Russle & Finny
4-5yr kids
had parents act different ways in the lab
3 kids playing on the floor
mom had 3 minutes to provide their own kid with instruction to help them engage in play
with non-familiar children
popular kids: moms who gave them group oriented instructions (ie. look at what the group is
playing, and try to play with them)
less noticed kids: moms gave them no advice
rejected kids (actively disliked): went over to the peer group and disrupted the group play so
that the child could be integrated, did not provide autonomy to the child
parents approval of kids you hangout with
information seek: ask about kid's friends
Nenaa Mounce
gr. 7 & 8 kids talk about parent's view
autonomy granting: hands off approach by parents
consulting: providing advice in peer group situations
mediating: getting involved when there is problems
parents who did more consulting/mediating had kids have better friendships
parents who did more autonomy granting had kids who had less conflicts with peers b/c
the parents see no need for consulting and mediating b/c kids had already passed that
Peer Acceptance
assessed in the peer group context
ask peers to rate each other
2/3 fits into one of these categories while the rest are average
most # of + votes
kids are prosocial
function well in friendships & conflict resolving
fit well into larger group
smaller group of antisocial group
gets into fights
most # of ± votes
aggressive kids, hyperactive
failure to regulate emotions
later delinquent behaviour
smaller group are considered passive (social anxiety)
poor expectations of social interactions
targets of bullying
both + & -
both + & - social behaviours
# of friends which protects them from being excluded
no votes either way
fare very well
shy kids but b/c they actively choose to be in solitude they do not report being lonely or rejected
transient status: possess social skills and can interact with others and make friends