role of education in middle childhood Flashcards
how does prosociality differ in middle childhood compared to early childhood
cost of prosocial b is greater
-not just time or effort but negative consequences to wellbeing or materials
-behaviours are no longer as simple as picking up a peg someone dropped on the floor
why might parents of reception aged children state their children are so tired after school
children age 4 have to navigate tough social situations with peers and teachers for the whole day, alongside curriculum, physical and cognitive challenges
dev of complex prosocial behaviours over time
eisenberg 1987
-longitudinal, 4-12 yrs, mixed method: moral reasoning, interview, oral survey on empathy, helping environment with opportunity to donate to others
-children overall had higher complex reasoning over time
-for girls reasoning was more concerned with role taking and empathy
-empathy related to complex moral reasoning and prosociality
what are the main 2 influences affecting prosocial behaviour in middle childhood
social norms
genetics
warneken and tomasello 2006 on social norms
-middle childhood is where cultural variations in social norms impact prosocial b
what is socialisation
process of transmitting cultural norms, values, knowledge from one generation to another
-can be from parents, caregivers, siblings, teachers etc
role of parenting research
dunsmore 2015
-143 children age 9-10
-when parents focused on person centred explanations (experiences, emotions etc) rather than process feedback (explaining the how of a task) or no feedback, children were more likely to act prosocially
lew-levy et al 2017
middle childhood is where we see cultural variation at group levels for prosocial b
social norms research by house 2018
-social norms shape social expectations of what is appropriate/ desirable for their own and others actions
-social norms support prosocial dev
-social norms are embedded at the cog level
-social cog skills are the foundation for children to absorb prosocial norms
-social norms may encourage egalitarianism, cooperation and sharing
what does middle childhood prosocial behaviour predict
Ma et al 2020
-914 children, longitudinal
-4 groups: low prosocial, high prosocial, primarily friendly (not kind), primarily kind
-low prosocial b predicts peer relationship conflict in adolescence
-primarily friendly not kind predicted relational agg in adolescence e.g bullying
-Ma et al: interventions could be affective in focusing on these 2 groups and support kindness over friendliness
study for genetics and prosociality
knafo et al 2006
-longitudinal twin study, ages 2-7, mixed method (parent and teacher reports)
-9424 pairs of twins (mz and dz)
-age 2: environment explained 47% of variance
-age 7: environment explained 3% variance
-genetic contributions may have become more prominent in explaining differences in prosocial dev
role of education in supporting prosocial b
Battistich 2003
-521 children, 3yr longitudinal study from 8 yrs
-child dev project (CDP): classroom, school wide, family based activities to encourage self reg, cooperation, helping and empathy
-children in the program = higher in acceptance by peers, lower social anxiety
johnson et al study 2013
-speculated children with dep parents are more likely to have social and emotional issues later in childhood and adolescence
-194 children in Head Start Program
-school based intervention focused on emotion reg and support
-high risk children with dep parents lower social and emotional issues over course and show more prosociality
-school interventions are KEY to support prosocial dev
powers et al 2015 study
-longitudinal
-school based mental health support provision in primary school
-when support in school added, there was an increase in uptake of provision and increased student wellbeing and prosociality
