lectures 21&22-peers Flashcards
Why study children’s peer relations?
Parenting and child-parent relationships have long been a focus of study in child development
Research on children’s peer relations is more recent
Early work in 1930s, flourished as a field since the early 1980s
Peer relations as a unique context for development
-Reciprocity (Piaget)
Shared responsibility for course of interaction
Understanding social partner’s perspective
Presents different social challenges (e.g., initiating interaction) & learning opportunities
-Self development (Sullivan)
Nature of peer relations impacts self appraisals
Predictive of long-term adjustment & personal relationships
Peers & Parents as Complementary
Harlow
Maternally-reared monkeys without peers: immature peer play, avoidance, aggression, little cooperation in adulthood
Peer-reared monkeys: reactive to small stresses, aggressive toward out-group members
Peers & Parents as Complementary-
Anna Freud & Sophie Dann:
group of 6 3-yr old peer-reared orphans from WWII
attached & intensely prosocial to each other, but initially aggressive & wary of caregivers
improved with adult care & happy, productive as adults
Peers & Parents as Complementary
Under normal circumstances peer relationships are not attachments, but vital for social competence
Parents promote emotional security, instruction
Peers promote perspective taking, and thus cognitive, moral, and social development
Judith Rich-Harris: an extreme genes-peers argument
Connections between Parent and Peer Relations
-Direct parental influences
Neighborhood context affects availability of peers
When parents arrange play young children develop larger networks and are more socially skilled
Parental advice on conflict resolution also related to peer acceptance
-Indirect parental influences
Securely attached children perceive peers more positively, have more positive peer interactions, larger peer networks, and higher quality friendships in preschool & beyond
Authoritative parenting related to positive peer relations
Normative Development:Beginnings of Peer Interaction
-Infants (1st yr of life) early forms of social interest & responsivity look/touch each other 2-4 mos direct smiles/frown at interaction partners (peer smiles ~ 6 mos, adults 2 mos or earlier) observe peers -Toddler (2nd yr of life) reciprocal imitation at 1 yr action/reaction enabled by advances in locomotion language peer = responsive toy -3 yrs onward complementary roles & pretence enabled by further advances in language knowledge about the world
Functions of Pretend Play
intersubjectivity
compromise
work out troubling issues
create peer bonds (Howes)
Parten’s levels of play (2-5 yrs)
Play types develop in this
sequence, but co-exist in preschool years
-Nonsocial (solitary) play
Most prevalent type 3-4 yrs, up to 1/3 time in K, declines w/ age
Constructive solitary play not related to risk (Rubin)
Unoccupied & onlooker solitary play identify socially withdrawn children, combination labeled “reticence”
Functional play – immature motor action- related to poor acceptance
-Parallel play: play near other children with similar materials but don’t interact
-Social play:
Associative play: separate activities with mutual comments & toy exchanges
Cooperative play: children orient toward common goal (make-believe & games with rules
Individual Differences:Peer Acceptance
-Method: sociometrics (peer nominations)
-Consensus among peers (classmates) that a child is …
Liked: acceptance
Disliked: rejection
attitudinal variable
not mutual like friendship
-Social status types (continuous nominations used to form categories)
Popular: many positive, few negative nominations
Rejected: many negative, few positive nominations
Controversial: many positive & negative nominations
Neglected: few positive or negative nominations
Average: don’t score in extreme range for positive or negative
Social Status & Social Behavior
-Popular children can be prosocial or antisocial
Somewhat stable category
-Rejected children can be aggressive or withdrawn
More stable category
-Controversial children may show a blend of hostile, disruptive, and prosocial behaviors
Different behaviors with different peers?
Not a stable category
-Neglect not as strongly related to maladjustment as rejection
Withdrawal should not be equated with neglect
Also not a stable category
Peer Acceptance & Adjustment
Peer rejection related to later:
Academic difficulties, absenteeism, dropping out of school, antisocial behavior, delinquency, criminality
Direction of effect: does rejection cause these negative outcomes or is it a “marker variable” (peers are sensitive reporters of child behavior)? (Parker & Asher, 1987)
Evidence for both directions of effect
Early temperament & socialization may have a cumulative snowballing effect
The experience of peer mistreatment linked with rejection causes deterioration in adjustment above & beyond early risks (Ladd, 2006)
Peer Mistreatment: Links with Social Status & Behavior
peer victimization-
frequent target of
physical/verbal attacks
Peer Mistreatment: Links with Social Status & Behavior
Peer exclusion
being left out of peer activities
Peer Mistreatment: Links with Social Status & Behavior
-Withdrawn-rejected children particularly at risk for victimization, exclusion
Other risk factors for victimization: physical weakness in boys
-Experiencing victimization and exclusion is related to increased depressive symptoms, loneliness, anxiety, school avoidance
-Children who are behaviorally vulnerable (e.g., withdrawn) are less at risk for victimization when they have friends
Some friends are more protective than others (withdrawn friends not effective) (Hodges, Perry)
