PSY 1200 Lecture : Chapter 14
28 May 2023
School
Department
Course
Professor
1 Family
Processes
As we examine the family and other social contexts of development, consider Urie
Bronfenbrenner’s (1986, 2004; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) ecological
theory, which we discussed in the “Introduction” chapter. Bronfenbrenner
analyzes the social contexts of development in terms of five environmental
systems:
● The microsystem, or the setting in which the individual lives, such as a
family, the world of peers, schools, work, and so on
● The mesosystem, which consists of links between microsystems, such as
the connection between family processes and peer relations
● The exosystem, which consists of influences from another setting (such
as parents’ work) that the individual does not experience directly
● The macrosystem, or the culture in which the individual lives, such as an
ethnic group or a nation
● The chronosystem, or sociohistorical circumstances, such as the
increased numbers of working mothers, divorced parents, stepparent
families, gay and lesbian parents, and multiethnic families in the United
States in the last 30 to 40 years
developmental connection
Environment
An important contribution of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory is its
focus on a range of social contexts that influence the child’s
development. Connect to “Introduction.”
RECIPROCAL
SOCIALIZATION
Socialization between parents and children is not a one-way process. Parents do
socialize children, but socialization in families is reciprocal (D’Angelo & others,
2019; Klein & others, 2018). Reciprocal socialization is socialization that is
bidirectional; children socialize parents just as parents socialize children. These
reciprocal interchanges and mutual influence processes are sometimes referred
to as transactional (Dora & Baydar, 2019; Nelemans & others, 2019).
Children socialize parents just as parents socialize children.
Fuse/Getty Images
For example, the interaction of mothers and their infants is sometimes
symbolized as a dance in which successive actions of the partners are closely
coordinated (Provenzi & others, 2018). This coordinated dance can assume the
form of synchrony—that is, each person’s behavior depends on the partner’s
previous behavior. Or the interaction can be reciprocal in a precise sense, in
which the actions of the partners can be matched, as when one partner imitates
the other or when there is mutual smiling. An important example of early
synchronized interaction is mutual gaze or eye contact. In one study, synchrony
in parent-child relationships was positively related to children’s social
competence (Harrist, 1993). Also, in a recent study, inadequate dyadic synchrony
was found in the preterm infant-mother relationship when compared with more
positive dyadic synchrony in the full term infant-mother relationship (Spairani &
others, 2018). The types of behaviors involved in reciprocal socialization in
infancy are temporally connected, mutually contingent behaviors such as one
partner imitating the sound of another or the mother responding with a
vocalization to the baby’s arm movements.
Page 466
Another example of synchronization occurs in scaffolding, which means
adjusting the level of guidance to fit the child’s performance (Clegg & Legare,
2017). The parent responds to the child’s behavior with scaffolding, which in turn
affects the child’s behavior. For example, in the game of peek-a-boo, parents
initially cover their babies, then remove the covering, and finally register
“surprise” at the babies’ reappearance. As infants become more skilled at peek-a-
boo, they gradually do some of the covering and uncovering. Parents try to time
their actions in such a way that the infant takes turns with the parent. In addition
to peek-a-boo, other caregiver games such as pat-a-cake and “so-big” exemplify
scaffolding and turn-taking sequences.
How does the game of peek-a-boo reflect the concept of scaffolding?
MIA Studio/Shutterstock
Scaffolding can be used to support children’s efforts at any age (Graneist &
Habermas, 2019; Norona & Baker, 2017). A recent study found that when adults
used explicit scaffolding (encouragement and praise) with 13- and 14-month-old
toddlers, the children were twice as likely to engage in helping behavior as were
their counterparts who did not receive the scaffolding (Dahl & others, 2017). And
a study of disadvantaged families revealed that an intervention designed to
enhance maternal scaffolding with infants was linked to improved cognitive skills
when the children were 4 years old (Obradovic & others, 2016).
Increasingly, genetic and epigenetic factors are being studied to discover not only
parental influences on children but also children’s influence on parents (Jylhava
& others, 2019; Szutorisz & Hurd, 2018). Recall that the epigenetic view
emphasizes that development is the result of an ongoing, bidirectional
interchange between heredity and the environment (Ecker & Beck, 2019; Hein &
others, 2019). For example, harsh, hostile parenting is associated with children’s
negative behavior, such as defiance and oppositional behavior (Thompson &
others, 2017). This likely reflects bidirectional influences rather than a
unidirectional parenting effect. That is, the parents’ harsh, hostile parenting and
the children’s defiant, oppositional behavior may mutually influence each other.
In this bidirectional influence, the parents’ and children’s behavior may have
genetic linkages as well as experiential connections.
