Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

🚫 PSY311H1F: Social Development with H. Kil > Lecture 6: Peer Relationships > Flashcards

Lecture 6: Peer Relationships Flashcards

1
Q

What is a peer? (5)

A
  • Social equals of similar behavioural complexity
    • i.e. Understands social norms at same level as everyone else in age group
  • Generally only refers to adolescents (10+) b/c younger kids still incapable of separating their identities from their parents
  • Similar characteristics → decrease with age i.e. more friends with less similar characteristics, around high school
    • Age (usually), gender, SES, personality, attitudes, ethnicity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How are peer relationships different from kids’ relationships with adults? (3)

A
  • Briefer → change friendships very easily and quickly
    • Parents, teachers, coaches, etc. present in your life for longer periods and more permanently
  • Equal status: horizontal interactions vs. vertical interactions with adults
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

mixed age peers (6)

A
  • Older and younger child have to adjust their behaviours/cognition to suit each other’s capacities for behaviour and social interaction and common interests
    • Older: compassion (perspective taking), assertiveness, leadership b/c younger child tends to look to older child
    • Younger: deference, seek assistance
  • Mixed age peers are somewhat different from siblings
    • Siblings: fixed power structure; older child implied to be the “boss” in the relationship
    • Only children learn how to be a leader, seek assistance, and defer through interactions with peers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Harris (1995) (3)

(hint: peer influence)

A
  • Peer influence is powerful and enduring in developmental outcomes
  • Peer influence > parental socialization once children get into school
  • Can even change how the child acts entirely; specifically, for adolescents/teens
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Fuligni & Eccles (1993) (5)

(hint: parenting influence in school)

A
  • Can’t get rid of parenting’s influence even after children go to school
  • Greater perceptions of parental power assertion and restrictiveness → extreme peer orientation
    • Delinquent + more extreme in internalizing/externalizing problems
  • Perception of reduced/similar decision making role → extreme peer orientation, peer (vs. adult) advice seeking
    • Adolescents who talk to their parents about problems and seek advice have better developmental outcomes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Kretschmer et al. (2016) (7)

(hint: quality)

A
  • Measured quality of peer interactions and parent factors
  • Affection, behavioural confirmation (cooperative activities), and problem behaviour (delinquent activity, substance abuse, anti-social behaviour)
  • High Quality (HQ) peer relationships (+)corr. w/ greater affection + behavioural confirmation by parents
  • Low Quality Victimized (LQV) peer relationships (+)corr. w/ higher parental problem behaviour
  • Lower affection + behavioural confirmation at home → increased risk of LQ + LQV peer relationships
  • Low paternal affection → increased risk of deviant activity (only compared to HQ)
    • Contrary to expectations, since focus is on how moms influence this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Does attachment style transfer from parents to peers? (4)

A
  • Attachment, associated with parenting: security and protection
    • Alliance focussed on love, responsiveness, endurance
  • Affiliation, associated with peer relations: exploratory system, stimulation
    • Alliance focussed on support in times of need, conditional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Markiewicz et al. (2006) (5)

(hint: safe haven)

A
  • Studied 12-28 y/os
  • Best friends = safe haven but not a secure base
    • Start trusting friends as providers of stress relief, but we learn that parents are a secure base from a younger age
  • Parents = secure base
  • When romantic partners exist? The romantic partner served as a safe haven and secure base, more so than friends and parents
    • Dependency increased with age
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Rosenthal & Kobak (2010) (7)

(hint: rankings, safe haven)

A
  • Studied high school and college students
  • Ranking of friends, parents, teachers on whether Ps would prefer to go to these people for help assistance + distress relief
  • If friends were placed as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person they’d go to for help in an emergency → internalizing + externalizing problems
    • Differs from study saying that best friends can be safe havens
    • Previous study looked at high SES and well-adjusted children, weren’t looking at the positive/negative effects of serving as safe havens, just that children were willing to use friends as safe havens
  • Also found that when they weren’t using fathers as support figures → higher levels of internalizing + externalizing problems
    • Pointing to importance of fathers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

patterns of peer interaction before school age (6)

A
  • 0-6 mo: touch, look, smile (depending on temperament)
  • 6-12 mo: social partner, influence peers but usually goes unnoticed
  • 1-2 y/o: complexity in conversations/exchanges, complementary behaviours (turn-taking), imitation
  • 2-3 y/o: share meaning (e.g. role playing), complementary roles (switching roles in playing)
  • 4+ y/o: maximize excitement and enjoyment, even more shared meaning, sustained play, don’t want to switch roles all the time
  • 5-7 y/o: prefer peer stimulus opposed to adults, same-gender preference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

before-school age play behaviour with peers (4)

A
  • Onlooker: half of 2 y/os → watches, doesn’t engage
  • Parallel: 2 y/os → plays separately but closely, imitation
  • Associative: 3-4 y/os → no organized activity, interest in others but not activity (e.g. just want to run around a field, not play actual games)
  • Cooperative: 3-4 y/os → more imagination/cognitive resources needed, role taking, pretend play, cooperative play, complementary roles
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

patterns of peer interaction during school years (7)

A
  • 6-7 y/o: gender preference; coordinated and successful play
    • But perhaps not as much any more in current times
  • 7-9 y/o: expectations; seeks peer inclusion, avoid rejection
  • 9-11 y/o: complex expectations; want acceptance by same gender peers
  • 11-13 y/o: intimacy, marked by similarities (attitudes, expectations) + disclosure
  • 13-17 y/o: understanding of the self; romantic relationships, trying to get the intimacy you see from friendships
  • 17+ y/o: emotional support expected; intimacy and support from romantic relationships based on experiences in 13-17 y/o
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

ways peers socialize (4)

A
  • 1) Observation: imitation, social rules, copy peer models
    • Often imitate older peer models, models tend to be deviant/delinquent
  • 2) Reinforce/Punish: praise vs. criticism, peer pressure
  • 3) Social Comparison: self-evaluation and self-esteem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

peer status (5)

A
  1. Popular
  2. Average
  3. Controversial
  4. Neglected
  5. Rejected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

peer status: popular (2)

A
  • Popular-Prosocial: friendly, calm, resolves disputes, able to join several groups easily and smoothly
  • Popular-Aggressive: attractive, “cool”, high social status, narcissistic/arrogant about ability to manipulate others, pose risk for younger children, more delinquent behaviours
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

peer status: neglected (2)

A
  • Socially reticent: watches, doesn’t engage/shy
  • Unsociable/socially uninterested: prefers to be alone/their own company, don’t find value in social interactions
17
Q

peer status: rejected (4)

A
  • Tends to be a very stable category
  • Rejected kids show more deviant behaviours than even controversial kids
  • Aggressive-rejected: low self-control, externalizing problems, disruptive
  • Nonaggressive-rejected: withdrawn, shy, sensitive to idea of being rejected and thus don’t try to socialize
18
Q

What leads to peer acceptance? (4)

A
  1. Temperament
  2. Social cognitive skills (by way of parenting and past peer relationships)
  3. Physical appearance
  4. Blending in
19
Q

peer acceptance: temperament (5)

A
  • Low effortful control (EC) + high surgency (S) → aggressive-rejected
  • Low EC + low S → nonaggressive rejected
  • Temperament X Environment
    • Low EC + parental conflict → rejected
    • Shy + negative parenting → neglected
20
Q

peer acceptance: physical appearance (2)

A
  • Social expectancy theory (self-fulfilling prophecy): kids who are more attractive are assumed to be nicer → end up actually tending to be nicer
  • Differential expectations set up an environment for the target to behave accordingly
21
Q

peer acceptance: blending in (5)

A
  • Atypical behaviour → rejection
  • Ethnicity → in-group bias
  • Puberty makes it difficult to fit in
    • Girls: physical developments early = standing out → hanging out w/ older crowds
    • Boys: self-esteem problems if not developing same as other boys
22
Q

antecedents of peer rejection (7)

A
  • Clarity of intention of perpetrator (e.g. did they intend to exclude me, or is it the situation?)
  • Identity of rejecting child
  • Personality, behaviour; often a cause of being rejected
    • Brood over things → non-aggressively rejected
    • Retaliating → aggressively rejected
  • Social support; having at least one friend → feel less rejected + fewer negative repercussions, although still rejected
  • Consistency of rejection (self-fulfilling prophecy with rejection → more rejection, harder to become accepted again)
23
Q

consequences of peer rejection (6)

A
  • Loneliness (if kid has less than one friend)
  • Difficulties in school (teacher rejection, lower grades)
  • Behavioural and emotional problems (more criminality, depression, aggression)
  • Reputational bias (and stability): tendency to interpret peer behaviour based on past encounters with that person
    • Even if kids who are accepted show negative behaviour, that one event tends to get discounted
    • On the reverse, if less prosocial kids try to behave in a prosocial way once, that event gets tossed aside
24
Q

Why are peer relationships so important? (7)

A
  • Cognitive development
    • Piaget: peer discourse + conflict resolution → learn higher-order levels of thinking
    • Vygotsky: problem-solving with groups → group-level learning (e.g. scaffolding, everyone is in the same zone of proximal development)
  • Emotional development
    • Self-concept, self-esteem, well-being (Sullivan, 1953), all helped by peer acceptance, since self-concepts are usually based off of how others see us
    • Overcome prior experience
      • Without peers, adolescents tend to be more distressed as individuals
25
Q

Harlow & Suomi (1971): What happens without peers? (4)

A
  • Mother reared monkeys (didn’t have peers) vs. social isolation for 6 months
  • Raised by mothers alone → shy, avoid those peers, aggressive, wouldn’t actively participate in play with peers
  • Social isolation → psychopathological behaviours (rocking back and forth, self-clasping, withdrawal from novel toys
    • Placed with peers younger than them → slow rehabilitation (zone of proximal development, working with each other)
26
Q

Suomi (1999, 2000): What happens without mothers? (5)

A
  • Peer Reared vs. Mother and Peer Reared groups
  • Peer reared → hyperattachment to peers, unwilling to detach from one another in novel situations (mutual attachments)
    • No exploring or playing
    • Hyperarousal to novel items (negatively reacted as a group)
    • Outgroup aggression
27
Q

Chang et al. (2017) (2)

(hint: sleep problems)

A
  • Consequences of rejection by peers; victimization by peers in school leads to more antisocial behaviour (externalizing problems)
28
Q

importance of peers in adolescent years (4)

A
  • Intimacy, affection, reciprocation
  • Conflict → compromise and negotiation
  • Similarity = better quality friendships with lower conflict
    • But similarity matters less with increasing age
29
Q

“best” friends (4)

A
  • More likely to occur around adolescent years; doesn’t really mean much before 11-12 y/o
  • Usually quality friendships = better outcomes for the child
    • But depends on friend characteristics
    • If the friend is delinquent and warm + kind, more likely to follow
30
Q

group socialization theory (7)

A
  • Increasing age → peer socialization determines personality (e.g. sibling differences)
    • Making choices to adopt/align to certain values
  • Assimilation: adoption of group rules, standards, beliefs guiding cognition and behaviour
  • Differentiation: group members becoming dissimilar, developing own identities
  • Group level effects vs Individual level effects
    • With age, lower levels of peer assimilation with the group (higher levels of differentiation)
    • Actively search for cliques and friendships with similarly minded people (self-selection)
31
Q

friendships in old age (3)

A
  • Number of friends consistent
  • Amount of disclosure, sociability, loyalty in friendship > compatibility, frequency/length of acquaintance (Adams et al., 2000)
  • Lower frequency of interaction → more satisfaction
32
Q

Smith Blau (1961) (5)

(hint: elders, peer rejection)

A
  • Surveyed 65-85 y/os
  • Older people feel something similar to peer rejection if they’re widowed or retired
  • Majority → class/status
  • Retirement affects men more than women - why?
    • In the 60s, more men were working, so it affects their sense of self
33
Q

Field (1999) (6)

(hint: elderly friendships)

A
  • Study on 60-74: young-old; 75+ old-old
  • Saw changes in kinds of friendships people had over time
  • Geographic distance is high → less likely to be friends
  • Habit-izing shared activities (e.g. coffee every Thursday at noon) is important
  • Desire for close friendships (only men), especially old-old men and men who have been widowed
  • Desire for new friendships (only men), related to previous point
34
Q

Jansen et al. (2011) [14]

(hint: bullying predictors)

A
  • What are the characteristics of children + environment before they were involved in bullying?
  • Impact of family characteristics (including parental mental health) + preschool emotional, behavioural, motor problems on → 1) being a bully, 2) victimization 3) bullying/victimization @ 11 + 13.5 yos
  • Bullying + victimization assessed v/v peer nomination
  • Preschool behaviour reported by parents retrospectively
  • Family characteristics: SES + family breakup at T1
  • Parental mental health: depression, anxiety, substance abuse, antisocial behaviour

Results:

  • Early aggressiveness, good motor functioning, SES → bullying in early adolescence
  • Early anxiety → decreased risk of being bully/victim @ 11
  • Boys more likely than girls to be bullies + bully/victims
  • Aggressive preschoolers → bully @ 11, bully/victim @ 10 + 13, victim @ 13
  • Motor skills → bully @ 10; low motor skills → victim @ 10 + 13
  • Parental mental health not associated w/ bullying
    • Contradicts previous evidence
    • Could be explained by measures of bullying not being affected by mental state

🚫 PSY311H1F: Social Development with H. Kil (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions