Class Notes (838,386)
United States (325,381)
Psychology (33)
Lecture 1

PSYC W2670 Lecture 1: Notes - Second Half of the Semester
Premium

50 Pages
23 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYC W2670
Professor
James Curley
Semester
Spring

Description
DEVELOPMENT OF SELF AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OTHERS • More than just Theory of Mind WHAT IS SELF? • Individual self: what personal characteristics make me unique? o E.g. knowledge that I am my own person • Relational self: what are my relationship connections to others? o E.g. IWMs of attachment • Collective self: what group do I belong to? o E.g. racial & ethnic identity HOW DOES A SENSE OF SELF DEVELOP? • Mirror tests: can infants actually recognize themselves in the mirror? o Does baby recognize dot on their cheek? If they do, they recognize it’s themselves in the mirror ▪ 17-22 months – begin passing the mirror test ▪ Prior to 12 months, children look behind the mirror for the other individual o Recognition in mirror = recognition of self as an individual SUSAN HARTER – DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-PERCEPTIONS • You can describe your attributes and that gives you a sense of who you are as an individual • 3-4 years: o Straightforward self-descriptions o Self-assessments are often inaccurate o Lack of coherence in self-descriptions as children unable to compartmentalize representations of self o Ex: I like pizza, I like to swim, I watch TV, I can count, I run fast • 5-7 years: o Self-descriptions focus on competencies o Beginning to coordinate compartmentalized concepts of self o Unable to link opposite concepts of self (e.g. being good and bad at things) o Still overly positive in self-assessments and overestimate abilities o Ex: I am good at running and jumping • 8-10 years: more refined o Aware of private feelings o Thoughts and concepts of self and begin to have more complex view of selves o Able to integrate concepts of self from multiple areas o Views of self become more culturally attuned o Ex: I am smart, I am popular and helpful, I am smart at languages but dumb at math • 11 years o Begin to describe selves in terms of relationships & personality characteristics o Focus on emotions, interpersonal skills & social competencies o Recognize that their self may vary according to social context o Ex: I am good-looking, friendly and attractive • Middle adolescence o Increasing introspection of view of self o Increasingly worried about others’ views of themselves o More integrated view of self but still have difficulty understanding how they may have contradictions in their own views of self (e.g. popular at home but not at school – leads to conflict in view of self) • Late adolescence o Great emphasis on morals, values and personal beliefs o Increasingly thoughtful about possible future selves o Overcome contradictory views of self and develop a coherent self-view SELF-PERCEPTION & SELF-ESTEEM • How good / bad am I at something or in terms of my characteristics? • How does this compare to other individuals? • Self-esteem = global evaluation of one’s worth as a person • Domain-specific self-perception and self-esteem o Harter developed a questionnaire that children complete enabling children to rate their self-esteem on several domain-specific items ▪ Athleticism might be valued more in some cultures than others o Gives a general measure of global self-wroth of children o If you give it to children before 8 years old, they are overly positive about self- assessment • Gender difference o Dominance & assertiveness higher in boys? o Athletic participation is lower in girls? o Unrealistic portrayals of female body images in media? PARENTING DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S INTENTIONS • First year: infants recognize what people look at, reach for, point to, and understand what individuals attend to certain things • 11-14 months: Infants begin to develop joint attention – looking at same objects with another individual, usually by pointing o Communication in intentions ▪ Can begin to guide other individuals’ intentions o Early evidence that children understand knowledge about others o Requirements for joint attention: ▪ ability to follow eye gaze ▪ understanding the intentions of others • 18 months: Children develop knowledge about violations of social norms o Social norms = thoughts of other individuals o e.g. on dropping food on the floor out of a bowl – “uh oh”, “oops” • From 2 years: children begin to be able to describe rituals & routines o These norms = ‘scripts’ o e.g. “night night time”, “school time” ▪  Generation of understanding regarding rule following & social predictability EARLY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT VIEWS OF OTHERS (VIDEO) • Even 18-month-old may understand perceptions of others • Adult tastes crackers and says “yuck”, makes disgusted facial expressions • Adult tastes broccoli and says “yum”, looks happy and satisfied • When asked to “give me some,” 18-month-old give broccoli to adult o Understand the adult prefers the broccoli ▪ Infers mental state of other, even though different from own o 14-month-olds give the crackers regardless of shown preference • Only at 4 years though, we understand others have fundamentally different perspective of world DEVELOPING THEORY OF MIND • Understanding the thoughts, beliefs, goals of other individuals = a theory of mind • Requires children to not only describe observable events & behaviors but to recognize & understand unseen mental states of others • Developing a theory of mind is an important prerequisite to developing social competence DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE OF “FALSE BELIEFS” • Orangutans and other primates also have TOM, but they DON’T have false beliefs o I know something about the world is true, I know you have a different view of the world, but your view is wrong o Holding simultaneously your own and another’s perspectives in your mind AND the information to deem these perspectives true or not • Maxi had some candy and put it in a kitchen cupboard and left the room. • While Maxi was away playing, his mom then moved the candy to a drawer. • When Maxi returned to the kitchen, participant is asked: where did Maxi look for his candy? • 4-5-year-old: Maxi will look in the cupboard o They can attribute an unseen mental state to Maxi that they know to be a false belief • 3-year-old: Maxi will look in the drawer o They are unable to hold in their minds that Maxi possesses a false belief that they know isn’t true VIDEO • Example 1: Children given smarties box o They open it up, and there are pencils instead o What did you think inside of the box? o What would your friend John thinks is in the box? “pencils” • Doesn’t understand John thinks independently • Example 2: Molly (doll) puts marble in picnic basket, Sally (doll) moves marble to the box o Where will Sally look for her marble? o Where was the marble in the beginning? (memory) • Before 4-years-old, children don’t realize people can act upon misrepresentations GARFIELD EXAMPLE • False belief task to 4-6-year old’s • Shown cartoon of Garfield putting an animal in one of two boxes. He then turns around and the animal jumps out of the box and jumps back into the same or the other box • Asked: o Reality question- really, where is the animal? o False belief question – where does Garfield think the animal is? • Pre-Frontal Cortex more active in child passers – like adults o region that continues to develop during adolescence FAMILIARIZATION TRIALS • Even younger children may be able to do this (18 months) • Object is placed into one of the two boxes (GREEN or YELLOW) • Adult either observes or is blindfolded o The object may be switched if the observer is blindfolded (FALSE BELIEF) • How does the infant respond if the adult reaches for the correct box (with the object in it) in TRUE vs FALSE belief? o True belief: if it was actually green, but the observer is reaching for yellow ▪ Spent far longer looking at them doing that – indication of norm being violated • Regardless of true and false belief, infant will look longer if the actor is violating what they clearly know • Infants expected the actor to search on the basis of her belief about the toy’s location DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE OF DECEPTION • Children are paired with an adult who gives advice regarding the location of a sticker • Demonstrator hides something in box, children ask demonstrator for help o Some adults gain reputations as ‘helpers’ and others are ‘trickers’ (they lie) • Distrust of ‘trickers’ develops from 4-5 years onwards o Before, the default is trust DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE OF PERSPECTIVE TAKING • Taking perspectives (opinions, views, beliefs) of others o e.g. selecting a gift for a parent ▪ what should we get her? • 3-year-old – may choose something they like such as a toy • 5-year-olds– more likely to choose something parent likes such as a magazine o Satisfying desire of child to have toy now or in future can aid them take perspectives of others into account DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS OF OTHERS • From 3-5 children begin to label the traits of others o generic and relate mainly to the observable • From 8, understand psychological traits but have a very fixed view of them for each person over time and contexts • By adolescence, children are more interactionist o understand that personality and psychological traits of others interact with situational events to predict behavior PARENTS PROMOTE THEORY OF MIND DEVELOPMENT • Examining the conversation content of 3-year-old with parent & how predicts current emotional understanding & theory of mind at 5 years old o Parents and child shown a picture book depicting parents and children in six emotion- eliciting situations: ▪ ‘a child is sitting in a living room, looking out the window, a parent walks out the door with an angry expression’ ▪ ‘a child is sitting in the kitchen while his/her parent is on the phone crying’ ▪ ‘a peer pushes a child off his/her tricycle’ ▪ ‘a child is at his/her birthday party surrounded by presents and friends’ ▪ ‘a child with an apprehensive expression is shown sitting next to a broken vase as his/her parent walks through the door’ ▪ ‘a child is shown sitting alone in a playroom crying, with peers in the distance’ • Discussion of emotional terms, of inner states with parents + Turn-taking and reciprocal conversation with parents  emotional understanding, theory of mind, social competence • Pretend play + conflict resolution  perspective taking, role reversals, shared and discrepant concerns, interest, goals o (Remember that secure attachment also promotes pretend play & conflict resolution) • The way in which parents describe the world (i.e. through stories) impacts children’s development of theory of mind o Those 30 minutes are indicative of parents’ behavior throughout life SOCIALIZATION OF LANGUAGE • Critical for: o understanding others o interacting with others o controlling the action of others o expressing one’s own feelings, desires and opinions WHAT IS LANGUAGE? • Phonemes: basic units of sounds of a language that are used to build up words, phrases, sentences • Syntax: grammar that dictates how words are combined • Pragmatics: rules of when to use language in particular contexts • Semantics: meanings of words & how meanings change when combined in phrases & sentences PREVERBAL COMMUNICATION • Pseudo-conversations in first year o Sounds, movements, facial expressions (particularly smiles) between caregivers & infants o Flow mainly managed by caregivers turning baby’s utterances and other noises into a conversation e.g. replying to burping sounds GESTURES • By 6 months, infants begin to respond to caregivers with gestures o Particularly pointing which facilitates learning names for objects and actions Can also use gestures to communicate desires or needs • Deictic gestures: refer to something around the child e.g. pointing, showing an object, reaching for something • Representational gestures: have meaning independent of the objects around the child: e.g. nodding yes, moving hand to mouth to mean eat • Does gesturing actually accelerate language? o American children said significantly more words at each month of development than Italian children o Spoke more two-word phrases o Italian children also use gestures + word in the same way as Americans will use 2-word phrase • Cooing o Begins at 1 month o By 3 months, parents & baby repeat each-others’ coos in exchanges • Babbling o Begins at around 6 months o Making vowel + consonant sounds o All babies regardless of native language make similar sounds at first before modifying them to the sounds they hear frequently o The production of babbling units helps infants to identify the finite inventory of basic units, and the permissible combination of these units, from which language will be constructed o By attending to particular patterned input, infants can begin to acquire the basic forms of language well before they have mastered adult knowledge of language structure and meaning o The babbling sounds of deaf children resemble those of hearing children – but deaf children increase their rate of ‘manual babbling’ WORD DEVELOPMENT • The number of words children understand always exceeds their ability to produce these words • Real word production begins between 10-15 months and rapidly increases between 18-24 months • 18 months: five is typical, but understands about 50 • 19-24 months: uses 50 to 75 words, understands as many as 200 • 2 years: understand at least 200 to 300 words and add as many as 10 new ones to their vocabulary every day o Typical words acquired: ▪ Social function words (more, thank you, hello, sorry, yeah, etc.) ▪ Common action words (verbs) ▪ Location words (prepositions – up, down, in, out, off, on, here, there) ▪ Descriptive words (adjectives/ adverbs – big, hot, yucky, color+ quantity words) ▪ Early pronouns (me, mine, I, you, it) ▪ Common nouns ▪ Names for people (Mama, Dada, favorite characters) • 3 years: uses up to 900 words (300 regularly) ACQUIRING GRAMMAR • Holophrases: single words (sometimes with gestures) that are used to express meaning that adults would convey in a sentence o Children are more likely to say the most semantically informative word for their holophrase ▪ E.g. "juice" not "want" • Telegraphic speech: Around 2 years, use 2 word combinations to express meaning, exclude unimportant words • From 2-3 years, children begin to use: o Auxiliary verbs (verbs that add meaning to sentences) o tenses other than the present o pronouns (he, she, they, me, I) o articles (a, an, the) • Recasting o Whilst children don't learn directly from being corrected, being given alternative utterances through recasts is believed to be more successful in developing grammatical understanding ▪ e.g. "Dad, did you see the dog runned away?" replied to with "Yeah, she ran really fast, didn’t she?" PRAGMATICS – LEARNING ABOUT CONTEXT • Getting attention of listener • Understanding listener’s feedback • Adjust speech to different listeners • Adjust speech to social situation e.g. church vs playground • Learn to listen to be able to engage in conversations • Be able to correct own speech to facilitate understanding CONVERSATIONAL COMPETENCE IN 2 YEAR OLDS • Wellman & Lempers 1977 study of 2-year old’s in a preschool setting • 80% of initiations are directed to adults, 20% to peers • 80% of the time successful in obtaining a response • If unsuccessful, 50% of the time retried to get attention with a revised initiation (even 2-year old’s rarely repeat initiations if already successful) • More likely to re-initiate an unsuccessful attempt if the listener showed a puzzled facial expression • Most children will only engage other children in dialogue about objects if they can both see and hear the objects • 2-year-olds are successful communicators, prefer communicatively competent partners and take partners’ feedback into consideration CONVERSATIONAL COMPETENCE IN 3-5 YEAR OLDS • In one study of free play interactions, 3-5-year-old children sustain sequences of conversation that range from 4-12 or more exchanges and up to 77% of the time speech was contingent on the verbal or nonverbal behavior of others (Garvey & Hogan 1973) • Another study found that 4-year-olds could sustain dialogue for up to 91 consecutive utterances (Schoeber-Peterson & Johnson 1989) • Longer utterances depend on both children having shared background contextual knowledge of topics to sustain conversation (e.g. preschoolers sharing knowledge of play or meal routines) • Preschoolers become effective turn-takers in conversation – but more so in one-to-one conversation than in groups LEARNING TO LISTEN EFFECTIVELY • Preschoolers may ask up to 70 information-seeking questions per hour! • Even 3-year-olds seek information preferentially from reliable adults (i.e. adults who have previously been shown to have given accurate information) • 3-year-olds also begin to ask clarifications if they are given ambiguous information (e.g. if asked “bring me the cup” when there are several cups) • Being able to recognize when one has not gathered sufficient information from a speaker continues to improve through early school years DEVELOPMENTAL PATTERNS OF PLAY AND PEER INTERACTION • Definition of peer o Any other child of approximately same age cohort o Many such interactions between peers o Often short interactions without long-term commitments o Limited to particular context e.g. school, club o Don’t require mutual liking or respect • Definition of friend o A peer with whom the child has a special relationship o Regular and sustained interactions o Share expectations about future interactions ▪ Looking for happiness o Engage in reciprocal actions (e.g. secret sharing) ▪ Many social / emotional development programs ban secrets • Want to uncover abuse o Reciprocal liking • Child’s development of peer interactions and friendships o Begins as communication of meaning  develop goals of maximum enjoyment  developing sense of self  expects friends to provide emotional support FIRST YEAR OF LIFE • 0-6 month infants will look at other infants but these aren’t social interactions in the sense that they are not initiations that expect replies from the social partner • From 6-12-month infants will begin to vocalize with, wave to & touch other infants INTERACTING WITH PEERS, YEAR 1-2 • Between 1-2 years many social exchanges between peers are facilitated by objects and toys • If a toy is offered, 80% of the time this is met with a positive response by the recipient • Negative responses are seen often when toys are taken without permission • 1-2-year-olds play games such as hide & seek, learning to take turns as ‘hider’ and ‘seeker’ • 1-2-year-olds also begin to imitate one another o & positive interactions in 1-2-year-olds contain far more positive affect and last a lot longer than those of children under 1 INTERACTING WITH PEERS, YEAR 2-3 • As children develop verbal & theory of mind skills, the major difference in peer interaction is the ability to share meaning with partners o e.g. saying “my turn” to indicate changing/sharing toys o enables children to participate in a wider range of games with each other including pretend play • Pretend play o What is it? ▪ Critical for development of social competence ▪ Children are able to experience the roles and feelings of others in play ▪ Teaches children to coordinate activities ▪ Is voluntary and child driven type of play o Timeline ▪ Begins around 18 months, usually with caregiver or siblings ▪ By age 3, pretend play can be very complex including symbolism, high cooperation ▪ 4-year-olds can have very long play sequences with complex roles, rules and themes ▪ Pretend play peaks around 6 years of age o Gender differences ▪ Girls - quiet, small groups, close to adults, artistic activities, books, dolls, unstructured, talking, more intimate • pretend play = mommies/princesses ▪ Boys - high energy, running, more space, aggression, noise, boisterousness, competitive, prefer organized games with rules • pretend play = superheroes ▪ though there are major similarities in the play of both genders – particularly the cooperative nature of it • Children begin to spend more time with other children than adults at around 2½ • Most peer interactions are with same-age peers – due to being imposed as well as chosen (ability matching) • Up to 3, peer interactions are likely to be with either sex o 3-7 same-sex peer interactions are more likely o From 7, vast majority of peer interactions are same-sex TYPES OF PLAY IN PRESCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN • Onlooker behavior: watch other kids play • Parallel play: playing side by side but not with each other • Associative play: play with others, but o More common for ages 3-4, less common for age 2 • Cooperative play: engage in play in which they reciprocate and share common goals o Ages 3-4 ROUTES THROUGH WHICH PEERS INFLUENCE EACH OTHER • Peers as socializers • Modeling behavior o Children model behavior of parents – also peers o From as young as 2, children imitate each other and learn new skills by doing so ▪ As children get older, less skilled children (e.g. in literacy) benefit from the presence of older or more skilled children whose behavior they can model • Reinforcing and punishing behavior o Children don’t only model their behaviors after peers, but increasingly as they get older they will reinforce (reward/praise) or punish/criticize other peers ▪ e.g. for playing with a toy viewed as belonging to the opposite gender o Peer pressure: peers model antisocial or undesirable behaviors, punish peers for not participating in it & reward them for doing so ▪ Most likely to occur if the peer encouraging the behavior is considered to be ‘high-status’ • Emotional socialization o Children are more likely to respond to positive and negative emotions with the same emotion o Such peer reactions help modify the expression and understanding of emotions of children o Engaging in pretend play with peers also promotes emotional regulation and understanding • Social comparisons o Social comparisons = the evaluation of the abilities, characteristics, actions of peers to understand and assess one’s own abilities, characteristics and actions o These comparisons determine self-esteem o Social comparisons become more common in middle childhood into adulthood DEVELOPMENT OF FRIENDSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS IN GROUPS DO CHILDREN UNDER 2 HAVE FRIENDSHIPS? • Sort of • 1-2-year-olds do show some rudimentary preferences for interacting with particular other children • They may be more positive or negative to certain individuals and seek initiation with certain individuals more consistently o e.g. have preferences for which child can engage in their pretend play, or sit next to them for meals/snacks • 2-year-olds are most likely to associate to form rudimentary friendships with children who are similar to them in age, gender and temperament (homophily) WHAT PREDICTS THE LIKELIHOOD OF FORMING FRIENDSHIPS? • The proportion of children engaging in reciprocated friendships increases through the preschool period (3-5 years) • However, even by age 5 years as many as 25% of children may not yet have formed friendships • Predictors of successful friendship formation: o Perspective-taking ability o Understanding of social intentions of others o Emotion reading and understanding skills o Own emotional regulation WHY DO CHILDREN FORM FRIENDSHIPS? • 3-7 years is all about coordinating successful and fun play • 8-12 years becomes more about a requirement for belonging and acceptance by same age and gender peers o Requires knowledge and understanding of group social norms and rules of inclusion as to avoid peer rejection and exclusion WHAT DO CHILDREN EXPECT FROM THEIR FRIENDS? • After 12 years, children still expect friends to be genuine, intimate and share common interests, but they also start to expect emotional support from friends • There are cultural differences in how children perceive the role of friendships (IN GENERAL) o E.g. in many cultures (China, Arab countries, Caribbean countries) research has shown that friendships are much less significant for the development of children’s self-worth o In collectivist countries (e.g China, South Korea, Cuba), friendships are characterized by more emotional intimacy than in individualistic countries (e.g. Canada, USA) GOTTMAN’S STUDIES ON HOW FRIENDS INTERACT • Tape-recorded the conversations and behavior of children (aged 3-7 years) in homes when interacting with familiar friends vs. unfamiliar children • Friends showed more: o Positive exchanges & affect o Clearer communication o Establish common ground easily o Exchange more information o Disclose more personal info o Better conflict resolvers o Better sharers o More knowledgeable about each other STUDYING FRIENDSHIP NETWORKS • Park and Seal 1996 Study of Friendship Networks at a Summer Camp o >200 children aged between 8-15 years stayed at a Summer camp in rural Northern Michigan for 4 weeks o Behavioral differences between children with and without friends ▪ Interactive ▪ Trustworthy ▪ Supportive ▪ Cooperative ▪ Resilient ▪ Shares values and attitudes • Park & Seal 1996’s five friendship patterns o Rotation ▪ Children readily form new friendships, but little stability in social ties ▪ Playful, gossipy, aggressive, bossy, untrustworthy o Growth ▪ Able to keep existing friendship ties, but add new ones also ▪ Not bossy, not easily manipulated o Decline ▪ Do not replace broken friendships easily ▪ caring, sharing, playful, sometimes considered show-offs, honest (girls) o Static ▪ Maintain a stable group of friends, don’t add new ones ▪ teasers, less caring, honesty (particularly girls) o Friendless ▪ no friends ▪ timid, shy, loners, easily angered, not resilient, less caring, less sharing, less honest • Predictors of Park & Seal 1996’s five friendship patterns o Female friendships are more likely to be more fragile than those of boys ▪ Girls tend to form close friends in isolation, whereas boys’ friendship units tend to have more 3rd parties (= mediators, allies, alternative partners) ▪ Girls tend to share more personal problems and negative feelings (co- rumination). This can lead to more positive friendships, but can also lead to increases in and co-sharing of girls’ depression and anxiety ▪ Girls may also divulge more personal information and negative gossip to other individuals ▪ Girls also react more negatively to violations of friendship expectations PROS OF FRIENDSHIPS • Gain Support • Gain Intimacy • Gain Guidance • Improved social skills • Improved emotional understanding • Reduced loneliness • Reduced depression • Reduces stress (particularly to do with peer rejection/exclusion) • Social support and buffering • Improved family relationships CONS OF FRIENDSHIPS • Withdrawn, victimized, rejected children are more likely to be friends with similar children • These friendships are often characterized by conflict rather than intimacy • These children often encourage further deviant behavior in each other ADOLESCENT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS • Can have short term effects o Pros: ▪ more conflicts, more mood swings, more depression following break-ups or if negative relationship o Cons: ▪ higher self-worth, less social anxiety, higher peer acceptance • Can have long term effects (UNCLEAR) o some benefits reported: ▪ e.g. those adolescents who had fewer but more intimate adolescent relationships formed more committed relationships as adults o Unclear if cause/consequence of relationships • Romantic Relationships are associated with other same qualities in other relationships o Parents - closeness, conflict resolving abilities, commitment, harshness, aggressiveness o Friends- quality, social support, commitment, hostility • Peer networks o Peer group networks support early romantic pairings o Romantic pairings facilitate connections between peers in the network GROUP FORMATION IN CHILDREN • Clique o By middle childhood 8-11 years, children form groups (3-9 usually) based on shared interests, sex and often race o Benefits of cliques are typically the same as benefits of friendships ▪ e.g. reduction in social stress o Through adolescence, cliques decrease in importance • Crowd o replace cliques in early adolescence (late adolescence individuals more focused on dyads, small groups) o promotes self-identity (which in turn predicts better social adjustment, though this is dependent on the particular crowd) o associated with reduced social anxiety PROSOCIAL AND ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR • Voluntary behavior intended to benefit another o Sharing o Caring o Comforting o Cooperating o Helping o Sympathizing o Being kind • Prosocial behavior that is performed: o Without consideration of one’s own welfare o Usually associated with some ‘cost’ in performing the behavior o Typically, without expectation of the prosocial behavior being reciprocated HOW DOES PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR DEVELOP OVER TIME IN GIRLS AND BOYS? • Prosocial developmental changes are associated with increased emotional understanding & theory of mind development • Do children show consistency in their prosocial behaviors? o Individual differences in early prosocial behavior are relatively stable across childhood and predict other measures of pro-sociality later in adolescence and early adulthood o Age 4: Prosocial behavior e.g. spontaneous helping  Age 7: Sympathetic behavior e.g. caring for others  Age 16-20: Prosocial behavior (self-reports) • Even 3-month old’s will prefer to look at ‘good’ helpful puppets versus ‘bad’ unhelpful puppets • Beginnings of Producing Prosocial behaviors – 1st year o By the end of the first year, children are beginning to point to interesting objects and start to give up some of these objects to parents, siblings even strangers o These early ‘sharing’ efforts however are not initiated by anybody and they do not improve with reinforcement o Children also begin to act on their preferences for cooperative versus noncooperative individuals & show preferences for those familiar, cooperative individuals NANCY EISENBERG’S PROSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM • Mary goes to friend’s birthday party but on the way, sees a girl who has broken her leg. Does Mary go get the child’s parents and be late to the ice cream and games? What should she do? EISENBERG’S PROSOCIAL REASONING DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR • Bigger gender bias in parental reporting than in observational studies • Moderate gender differences found mainly due to: • Acts of kindness - Girls > Boys • Empathy – Girls > Boys • Less so, due to: o Sharing & comforting – Girls > Boys • Gender differences increase with age o Presumably due to the socialization effects that accrue as the result of children becoming aware of gender stereotypes and expected norms/rules which they internalize into their own self-image ARE THERE BIOLOGICAL ‘DETERMINANTS’ OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR? • Evolutionary basis o Such behaviors can be evolvable via: ▪ Kin selection ▪ Reciprocal altruism o e.g. chimpanzees show spontaneous helping, empathy, reconciliation, altruism, prosocial acts • Semi–free ranging chimpanzees helped an unfamiliar human to the same degree as did human 18-month old infants, irrespective of being rewarded (experiment 1) or whether the helping was costly (experiment 2) GENETIC INFLUENCES ON PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR • MZ twins have higher concordance on a number of pro-sociality measures compared to DZ twins • e.g. Williams’ Syndrome - loss of long arm of chromosome 7 • Characterized by increases in positive affect and lack of social inhibition • Associations between specific genes & variation in pro-sociality are small o Variations in approximately 20-30 genes have been associated with some aspect of prosocial behavior but mainly in adults ▪ Little evidence of specific relationships o e.g. Variation in Vasopressin 1A receptor & ‘giving’ behavior in the dictator gam BRAIN REGIONS • e.g. moral decision making – such as when observing others being intentionally harmed vs. accidentally harmed (Decety) • e.g. giving money to individuals in a public goods game. - Regions of interest involved in empathy (ACC, bilateral AIC), social significance (bilateral pSTS) and reward processing (striatum) (Ridderinkhof) • Many fMRI studies have found “regions of interest” related to e.g. when people hear sad stories, feel empathy or compassion, take another’s perspective, make moral decisions etc. - but nearly all of these are in adults TEMPERAMENT & EMPATHY/PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR • e.g. behavioral inhibition (BI) • Injury was feigned by mother and by experimenter during a lab visit and 2-year-old’s responses coded o Children were responsive to both their mother and the stranger o Children with higher BI showed less empathy, particularly to the mother COLLABORATION, COOPERATION AND RECIPROCITY COLLABORATION & JOINT GOALS • What are joint goals? o Most fundamentally, the partners must establish the joint goal that they perform the action together, with mutual knowledge that they both have this joint goal (Bratman, 1992) o Importantly, the joint goal is satisfied for one partner only if it is satisfied for the others as well o This requires that each partner be committed to seeing the activity through until the end, such that each gets her appropriate share of any resulting rewards or benefits (Tuomela, 2007) – the collectivity condition • Development of joint goals o Assessed 2.5- and 3.5-year-old children’s understanding of the mutual commitment to the joint goal by following through in one’s own role until all partners have obtained their respective rewards or benefits o Designed a task in which two children collaborated, but then the reward for one became available before the reward for the other ▪ For the second child to receive her benefit from the collaboration, the first child had to continue collaborating even after she had received her own benefit from the joint activity • It appears as if 2.5 year olds are not discriminating in their ‘immediate’ support between conditions whereas 3.5 year olds are • 3.5 year olds provide immediate support more often in the collaborative condition than in the baseline condition • Are the children just behaving in a series of reciprocal exchanges? o The difference between the collaborative condition and the baseline condition is already evident in 3.5 year olds on trial 1 o It doesn’t appear as if the children are engaged in reciprocal exchanges of simply doing to the other what was done to them. SUMMARY • Previous work demonstrated that around 2nd birthday children start to engage in collaborations with peers on complex problems • The data from this study suggests however that they do not do this with concern for their partners’ goals or outcomes • Here, 2.5-year old’s do not help their partner more in the collaborative condition than in the baseline condition after they have gotten their own reward • 3.5 year olds are committed to ensure that the needs and goals of their partners are met – they appear to have normative obligations • 3.5 year olds but not 2.5 year olds appear to understand that joint goals require mutual commitments • 2.5 year olds may assume that others have the same goals as themselves, they don’t recognize that others may have different goals SPONTANEOUS HELPING • Reactive prosociality o We act on behalf of others, not only in reaction to overt behavioral or communicative cues by the helpee who is directly soliciting help • Proactive prosociality o Helping occurs in the absence of communicative cues, based upon our knowledge of the situation and the other person’s need • General concept of method o Children faced a situation in which an accident occurred, but the actor did not notice it, and thus did not make explicit that she had a problem with which she needed help o In particular, the experimenter was engaged in a task away from the child when an object dropped to the floor o Experiment 1 contrasted an experimental condition, where the actor was turned away and continued with her task without noticing the event, with a control condition in which the actor had discarded the object on purpose o These results suggest that children are able to help without concurrent cues from the experimenter that she needs help o Specifically, in the experimental condition children frequently returned the dropped can even though the experimenter had not noticed the accident o The control condition rules out the possibility that children generally like to pick up and return dropped objects, for example because they want to engage socially with the experimenter, or because they want her to repeat the action o Overt cues are not necessary to elicit helping but children from around 2 years onwards spontaneously help others (although we already know that 2yo children are more likely to help the stronger the cue that they are given) EQUAL SHARING • Background to Study: o When in receipt of a windfall of resources, human children begin showing tendencies towards equitable distribution with others at five to seven years of age – they share unequally before this o Arguably, the primordial situation for human sharing of resources is that which follows cooperative activities such as collaborative foraging, when several individuals must share the spoils of their joint efforts – no ape species routinely forages collaboratively o So, do chimpanzees show equal sharing following collaboration & can even younger children do this if they have to collaborate to gain the windfall? • In task, children either worked together or by themselves to pull strings that would bring balls to their window o It was rigged so that it would pay out a 3:1 ratio rather than 2:2 that it started with o If worked collaboratively, children were more likely to equally share • ‘Rewards began in the middle’ – no ‘possession’ bias o Parallel work condition where each child pulled own string to test if children were observing “work effort” rather than collaboration o Significant differences only in 3-year old’s o 3-year olds still engage in equal sharing • Children who got fewer rewards than expected were more communicative about this unfairness in the collaborative condition • Expectation that collaborative work would lead to equal sharing • In sum, even in very young children, working collaboratively promotes equal sharing SOCIAL NETWORKS CHARACTERISTICS OF A WELL-FUNCCONING RELACONSHIP FOR A CHILD • Provides support and enhances self-esteem • Contributes emotional security • Provides affection • Offers opportunity for intimacy and self-disclosure • Provides instrumental and informational assistance • Promotes growth of interpersonal sensitivity • Validates hopes, interests, and fears • Offers prototype for later intimate relationships • But children have multiple relationships, which may fulfill these characteristics to various degrees o Social networks! SOCIAL NETWORKS • A set of “actors” (e.g., people, children) tied together by some type of relationship • Can be limited to a specific type of relationship o Friendship networks o Advice networks o Study networks o Co-membership in groups • Can simply ask “Who do you know” (narrow down to specific groups i.e. “this class”) WHO IS IN CHILDREN’S NETWORKS? • At first, child’s network is only immediate family/ household o Parents shape who is around child (parents’ networks) • Child develops relationships with people in parents’ social networks— become part of their network o Around age 5-6 (school age), child begins to add their own ties to network. CHILDREN’S EARLY NETWORKS • Not self-created o Shaped by parents’ choices/values (e.g., housing, neighborhood, child care, schools) o Parents are “gatekeepers” of children’s social connections ▪ facilitate or restrict access to people, activities, and venues) o Built on parents’ networks—thus shaped by same influences that shape parents’ networks ▪ Ex: if parent’s social networks are small and family-based, the children’s social networks will look very similar (often financial-based or family is not signing children up for activities) PARENTS’ SOCIAL NETWORKS • Relatives, neighbors, friends, workmates, schoolmates o Have direct effects on child’s development o Have indirect effects on child’s development (through effects on parents) EVOLUTION OF NETWORK EFFECTS ON CHILD • Indirect effects of parents’ social networks on development are more common when child is young (until about age 6) o Support mothers receive from network members and integration of their networks during pregnancy associated with decreased maternal depression 8 weeks after delivery ▪ Stress = postpartum childcare stress e.g., problems with infant feeding ▪ Guidance = having supportive social relationships, e.g., “I have someone to talk to about decisions in my life.” • From age 6-9, child typically begins to be more directly affected by long-standing members of parents’ network • After age 9, peers feature more prominently in child’s network (e.g., social influence) TYPES OF INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PARENT NETWORKS ON CHILDREN • Access to emotional and material support o Positive ▪ Availability of support from friends, neighbors, relatives positively associated with parent’s effectiveness, warmth, and confidence when interacting with child; lower depression & anxiety ▪ May be especially important if child has disabilities ▪ Material assistance can help with child care, nutrition, etc. o Negative ▪ Childcare advice can undermine self-efficacy and confidence in parenting, contributes to difficulty in adjusting to baby ▪ Parent may have to dedicate time/resources to repaying material assistance o Demonstration of indirect effect ▪ Maternal aversive behavior directed at child (e.g., yelling, screaming, striking child) ▪ Child oppositional actions (e.g., violating rules, noncompliance, hitting, talking back, throwing objects) ▪ When aversive mothers have “high friendship days,” their aversive behavior drops  decreases oppositional effects for child • Parenting controls o Members of parents’ social networks may encourage or discourage particular patterns of child interaction (implicitly or explicitly) o Parent may thus treat child differently around different network members • Availability of role models o Parents may adopt/avoid child rearing practices by watching behavior of other network members o Without models in network, may be more influenced by own parents’ child-rearing behavior o Ex: vaccination – less likely to vaccinate if a lot of friends don’t vaccinate their children o Ex: parent involvement at home & school – more involved if friends involved as well TYPES OF DIRECT EFFECTS OF PARENT NETWORKS ON CHILDREN • Cognitive and social stimulation o Provides opportunities for interactions and experiences outside of everyday family life o Exposes child to other settings with different norms and rules governing interaction o Nonparent adults unconstrained by parental role • Direct support to child o People in parents’ network can serve as sources of support OR stress to child o May help in situations where parental support is compromised (e.g., depression, drug use, divorce) o May help divorce negative parental treatment from own self-worth • Observational models for child o Recall Bandura – learning through observation o Children can pick up positive or negative (or neutral) behaviors depending on what they observe ▪ Ex: exercising regularly, being overweight, but NOT healthy eating habit (children don’t really have control over this) o Observe reciprocal exchanges needed to form and maintain network relationships PARENTS’ NETWORKS: SOME IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES • Cognitive development o Perceptual differentiation o Task completion o Representational thinking o Cognitive receptivity (i.e., openness to experience) • Social development o Attachment and stranger anxiety o Experience with social roles ▪ Ex: gender roles (women at home, men as breadwinners) o Self-image o Prosocial behavior o Child’s future relationships OVERALL FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKS FOR CHILDREN SOCIAL SUPPORT • Emotional support (e.g., reassurance, encouragement, expressions of concern, positive feedback) o Central to secure attachment at very young age o Children with emotionally supportive early networks (including parents) tend to: ▪ Be more socially competent with adults and peers ▪ Have more supportive social networks later on ▪ Perceive greater support from people around them in general • Practical support (e.g., advice, direct assistance, material/ instrumental aid, suggestions of course of action) o Babies born helpless, so practical support is required o Later, children will actively seek practical support/ advice from network members o Older siblings are frequent source of instrumental aid ▪ Parents typically play leading support role until about 5th or 6th grade – are most frequently named sources of affection, reliable alliance, enhancement of worth, and practical aid • Support specialists vs. generalists o Support specialists have one particular form of social support to offer (e.g., coaches, teachers) ▪ May provide children with specific skills and norms of behavior in a particular context, or give advice/ assurance on a certain topic o Support generalists provide many different social support functions (e.g., parents, later friends) ▪ Provide children with emotional security enabling trust and confidence, foster development of age appropriate skills, provide essential information and guidance, model competent conduct • Social support as stress prevention o Social support surrounds child with people who can provide emotional and practical assistance ▪ Continuously contributes to wellbeing by preventing stress • Social support as stress buffering o Social support strengthens child’s ability to cope/adapt effectively by providing sense of security, emotional and practical assistance ▪ Contributes to wellbeing by aiding coping and recovery after stressor arises o Children’s network density predicts attenuated physiological response (cortisol & salivary alpha amylase reactivity) to psychosocial stressor • Children are vulnerable if support is threatened o Social support is essential for child’s healthy development/wellbeing o Absence of support poses significant psychological risks to the child o If support they need is threatened by parents’ problems (e.g., marital conflict, depression), involved/supportive sibling, grandparent, etc. may be able to mitigate harmful effects SOCIAL CAPITAL • Social capital = Potential utility (specifically, access to resources) yielded by one’s relationships and broader social ecology • Types o Family social capital o Community social capital (includes schools) o Bridging these types also important • Strength of weak ties o Weak or moderate ties (e.g., acquaintances) often provide social capital to family o Studies on how people find their jobs ▪ e.g., Langlois – 42.7% found their job through a personal contact o This is one reason why going to a school like Columbia can lead to upward mobility – not always what you learn, but who you meet (social capital!) • Class differences & upward mobility o Not just about financial resources o Social capital begets social capital begets upward mobility o Disparities in childhood can multiply over life course ▪ E.g., “Concerted cultivation” vs. “natural growth” o Also, race and gender differences • Moving o Moving can undermine social capital because parents and child are less likely to have relationshi
More Less

Related notes for PSYC W2670

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit