friendship lecture Flashcards
what kind of relationship is there between peers?
horizontal: no power difference
functions of peer relations
- play companions
- role models
- instruction and criticism
- social comparison (can be good or bad)
- confide in them
- emotional support
piaget and vygotsky feelings toward peer relationships
piaget: thought they were important for development
vygotsky: thought it was better to have older peers
how do peer relations evolve over time
- more interaction with peers at younger ages (daycare and preschool)
- increase online friends with age
- over half ages 13-17 have at least one online friend
- only 20% actually met online friend
- long distance friendships aren’t new (pen pals)
sim and dif between internet friends and pen pals
pen pals: take time to write a letter, more depth, meaningful, not as spontaneous
effect of towns and cities on friendships
not conducive to child interactions; unsafe for them to roam around without parents in USA
Use of internet for friendships during covid
83% teens reported using internet to maintain contact
development of peer relations 0-2 yrs
- increase social interaction with age
- 6-12 months: interest in peers emerges early, smile and gesture at other babies
- 18-24 mo: coordinated interactions, imitation, start to assume complementary roles
development of peer relations, preschool age, 2-5 yrs
- increase complexity and reciprocity of interactions
- social and nonsocial play
development of peer relations, elementary school age
- more cooperative and complex play: games with formal and socially constructed rules, learn social agreement, emergence of true peer groups (interact regularly, informal organization/hierarchy - may emerge earlier with more daycare/preschool)
development of peer relations, adolescence
- sharp increase in time spent with peers
- emergence of cliques: small groups of friends with more formal structures, organized around perceived similarities, more peer pressure, conformity peaks in adolescence, provides sense of identity
- crowds: large reference groups that are loosely organized but have similar characteristics
nonsocial play 3 types
- unoccupied: briefly watch some event
- onlooker play: watch others play, without engaging with them
- solitary play: engage in own activity (first seen around 6mo, common before 2.5yr, focus on exploring objects, can involve pretense/pretend)
social play 3 types
- parallel: engage in similar activity but does not interact (common between 2-4yr, still occurs later)
- associative play: play with others in same activity but no shared goal (main purpose is to interact with someone else, common 3-5yr, low structure and no common goal, socializing is important, often involves dramatic play)
- cooperative play: engaged in common activity with shared goal (examples: building tall tower together, playing restaurant; common in 4+yr, goal is not necessarily to win)
other types of play
- competitive: more common 5+yr, more organized, emphasize winning, society is trying to introduce at younger age
cohort effects on play
- more daycare and preschool now –> less cross-sectional interactions with peers (different ages interacting)
- cultural/contextual differences –> unsure; most studies done in USA
- amount of time with parents/peers
importance of play
- essential part of development
- active physical play promotes emotion regulation/increase pos emotions
- higher situational emotional knowledge (can take more perspectives)
- if unstructured, kids will play with whatever is available
- build resilience and creativity
choosing friends
- choose people who behave pro-socially
- with similar interests, behavior, cognitive maturity, cooperativeness
- similar levels of negative emotions
- close proximity
- similar/shared activities
measuring peer acceptance via 2 sociometric measure techniques
1) nominations technique: pos nominations and neg nominations (who do you like most/least)
2) rating scale technique: used with older kids; rate everyone on “likability” scale
peer acceptance categories (by # nominations)
- popular: many pos, few neg
- rejected: many neg, few pos
- controversial: many neg, many pos (rare - bullies or high status and mean)
- neglected: few pos and few neg
- average, moderate, few extreme ratings
social skills and behaviors of sociometric categories
- popular: friendly, cooperative, pro social, not aggressive or withdrawn, successful at initiating and maintaining interactions, good theory of mind and understands others’ and own motivations well, resolve conflicts easily
- rejected: aggressive, disruptive, bossy, uncooperative, anxious, withdrawn, critical of peers, poor resolution skills
more lonely, depressed, socially anxious, most worrisome group; at risk for dropping out, truancy, low self-esteem, antisocial behavior
- controversial: mixed behaviors, prosocial towards some kids, disruptive towards others
- neglected: withdrawn, interests different from peers, make few attempts to enter groups, shy, don’t want to draw attention to self
correlates of peer acceptance
- parenting: secure attachment and authoritative parenting
- physical attractiveness
- cognitive skills: perspective taking and academic competence
- social skills (example - Doge): STRONGEST PREDICTOR of peer relations
friendship quality
- intimacy: sharing personal info, valued more by girls
- help and guidance
- companionship: time spent together, valued by boys
- rejected children have lower quality friendships
bullying
- distinct type of proactive aggression
- power imbalance
- repeated situations
- concern is growing
how common is bullying
varies depending on how it is measured, and defined (persistent or one-time occurrence)
frequency of bullying
- increases during childhood, peaks in early adolescence, decreased victimization with age
type of bullying vs gender
boys: more physical aggression
girls: more verbal and relational aggression
why are there individual differences in aggression
- social cognitive distortions: how the child interprets the situation
- enviro/social context: family, society, media
role of family in bullying
- discipline techniques
- power assertion and inconsistency both lead to high aggression
- coercive family systems (Patterson): anger, threats, harsh punishment spreads between family members
parenting style - parental depression and conflict
correlations between bullying and victimization
- self esteem
victim: low, not assertive, socially isolated
bully: unclear - normative beliefs endorsing aggression –> leads to more aggression
bullies: view bullying as positive
victims: not clear, but if less likely to report aggression if they endorse it - school characteristics
neg school climate –> low support for academic progress, distrust between students and teachers - school performance and engagement
bullies: worse performance
victims: disengaged, less socially adept, more isolated
Guerra, williams, sadek 2011
mixed method longitudinal study
- 3yr study colorado schools, 2678 kids (all ages), focus groups with 115 other kids
- found physical, direct and indirect verbal, and bystander bullying
- surveyed self esteem, normative aggression, school climate
bullying and victimization
- predicted by low self-esteem, normative bullying, and poor school climate for both genders
focus groups
- bullying in adolescence linked to popularity and sexuality
- boys want to improve status, appear as desirable mates, lower status of certain girls
- girls want to enhance phys and sex appeal to improve social status, limit competition
- both genders say bullying is entertaining
implications:
- make a positive school climate
- change the normative beliefs about aggression
- build healthy self esteem
- address sexual nature of bullying
- prevention at multiple levels (individual, classroom, school)
should there be a federal law for bullying
- need to define what bullying really is and how to deal with it when we see it
is bullying in sports ok?
more fights, less attendance
long term efects of bullying
- health, wealth, crime, social outcomes
great smoky mountain study
accelerated longitudinal n=1273
- original sample: 3 cohorts, 9yr, 11yr, 13yr
- annual assessment until 16yr, then at 19, 21, 24, 26
- measure health and wellbeing
- involved in bullying –> predicts neg outcomes for health, finances, behavior, social
