Changes to PSD in Adolescence

Question 1

what two studies found adolescence to be a period of vulnerability?

Answer 1

Pachuki et al. (2015)
Zarrett & Eccles (2006)

Question 2

outline the findings from Pachuki (2015) regarding vulnerability in adolescence

Answer 2

along with the -ve stereotypes around adolescence, there are increased strains & pressures from family, peers, education, health - in addition to the extensive physiological changes

Question 3

outline Zarrett & Eccles (2006) findings re vulnerability in adolescence

Answer 3

vulnerability may partly explain why the pressures can come together and increase the rate of mental health concerns

Question 4

how can cognitive changes in adolescence lead to vulnerability?

Answer 4

risk perception -vely affected, & with increased sensitivity to peer influence there are increased rates of accident and injury

Question 5

What did Tannes et al. (2018) find re brain development associated with psb across childhood and adolescence?

Answer 5

continued improvement in social perspectives across adolescence
- social perspective taking associated with PSB and more cortical thinning in left hemisphere specifically

Question 6

why are the findings from Tannes et al (2018) important for research into PSB in teens?

Answer 6

they run counter to societal assumptions that teens are not prosocial

Question 7

what groups of developmental change in PSB did Nantel-Vivier et al. (2009) identify in 10-15 year olds in Canada and Italy?

Answer 7

low, moderate and high
- most trajectories reported stable or decline in prosociality over adol.

Question 8

what is a -ve with the Nantel-Vivier et al. (2009) study on teens and PSB?

Answer 8

parents and adults rated the teens pro-sociality rather than the peers

Question 9

findings from Eisenberg et al.’s (2015) studies?

studies on moral reasoning & PSB

Answer 9

• individual differences - females reach complex moral reasoning earlier, may be from physiological and social learning factors
• empathy and moral reasoning still predicted PSB

Question 10

findings from Eisenberg’s (2022) study of 22-26 yo?

Answer 10

now considered to also cover some of late adolescence
- found same pattern of empathy and sympathy linked to moral reasoning anad PSB

Question 11

outline the gender differences in development found by van der Graaf et al. (2018) in the longitudinal study of 13-17 year olds

Answer 11

developmental trajectories differed by gender (prosociality)
- boys - stable until 14, increase till 17 then decrease
- girls - increased until 16 then slightly decreased

Question 12

did van der Graaf et al. (2018) find that early pro-sociality could predict later pro-sociality?

Answer 12

yes - but the association was stronger for girls

Question 13

what was stressed from the findings of van der Graaf et al. (2018)?

Answer 13

moral socialization by peers was central to experience based development of perspective taking and empathy needed for PSB
- need for interventions to focus on moral emotions to support PSD

Question 14

what did Guzman & Carlo (2004) find regarding the role of culture & acculturation (assimilation to a culture) in PSB?

Answer 14

acculturation -vely predicted psb
peer but not parent attachment +vely associated w psb
- culture needed to be bought more into the theories of psd, and more of an ecological and family systems approach to psd

Question 15

were Ahmed et al. (2020) correct in their prediction that teens would be increasingly swayed by peers over adolescence?

Answer 15

no - prosocial and antisocial influence actually decreased with age
- was suggested that it was early and middle periods of adolescence where teens were most influenced by peers

Question 16

give two findings from Crone’s 2022 systematic review of PSD research

Answer 16

• consistently found that PSB was +vely associated w/ wellbeing and social adjustment
• across neuroscience studies, social brain development (cortical thinning via neuronal pruning) was shaped by social environments