Unit 3 Flashcards
How do aspects of parenting impact child development?
- father involvement (7 &11) = positive academics and clean criminal record in adolescence
- closeness with mother (16) = marital satisfaction in adulthood
- mother and teen hostility = adjustments in adulthood
- parenting training/interventions = reduce behavioural and delinquent problems in children
3 aspects of parenting
- warmth and care
- control and demandingness
- discipline
4 parenting styles
- authoritative
- authoritarian
- permissive
- uninvolved
Outcomes of parenting styles
- positive outcomes for children with authoritative parents
- negative outcomes for children with neglectful/uninvolved parents
- midd - children with authoritarian parents
cultural influence on parenting style chosen
- white = authoritative (better outcomes in western societies)
- non-white = authoritarian
gender differences in parenting styles
- mother = authoritative
- father = authoritarian or permissive
Influence of parental conflict and divorce on child
overall poorer outcomes but while parenting matters it is not as important as the “quality” of parenting
Minor conflict between parents (are divorced), leads to…
more negative psychological outcomes in child as he/she might wonder why his/her parents are getting divorced
lots of conflict between parents (are divorced), leads to…
better psychological outcomes in child as child might feel a sense of relief.
When do the most severe outcomes occur during the process of a divorce (for the child?)
In the “short-term” (first couple of years after the divorce)
what are long-term effects of divorce (for the child)?
- more likely to drop out of school
- more likely to go through divorce themselves
Children from LGB families report feeling _____ and subject to ____ but feel ____ about their family overall.
different, social difficulties, positively
Parenting quality matters regardless of
- gender, sexuality of parents
cross-cultural goals for child rearing?
- protection
- nurturance
- socialization
parenting reflects the ___ and ___ of a given cultural context
beliefs and values
differences in how warmth is expressed cross-culturally
Chinese parents
- less warmth (tend to withhold praise)
- more controlling (respecting authority)
Latin American parents
- goal to fulfil obligations
- need to maintain harmonious relationships
What is valued as being “good parents”?
different across cultures and has to do with interdependence or independence
Caregiver relationship (siblings)
one sibling serves as a quasi-parental figure for the other
buddy relationship (siblings)
both siblings like each other and try to be like each other
casual/uninvolved relationships (siblings)
siblings who have little to do with each other
critical/conflictual/rival relationships (siblings)
When one sibling tries to dominate the other - teasing and fighting
functions of sibling relationships
- practice communication and social skills
- buffers for peer rejection, parental conflict
- provides opportunity to learn about gender
- promotion of individuality (differentiation from other sibling)
- can lead to conflict that can be constructive or destructive
stereotypes with birth order
- first = perfectionist, get along well with others, leadership skills
- youngest = spoiled, pampered
- middle = gets ignored
not often factually true
Only children tend to have
- higher self-esteem
- better academic performance
differences in peer relationships for only children across culture
- In North America = less peer acceptance
- In China = no difference
why?
- only child policy in china = more normative to have one child
- collectivistic cultures = more contact with extended family
Important functions that grandparents serve
- useful for survival (helping to raise children)
- boosting emotional well-being
- serves as buffer for risk and stress
types of grandparents
- influential
- supportive
- passive
- detached
- authority oriented
influential grandparents
very involved and serve as authority figures (best outcomes – the more warmth > the more beneficial they are for the child)
supportive grandparents
close intimacy with children but not authority figure
passive grandparents
Not very involved with child (little contact)
detached grandparents
barely any contact with child
authority oriented grandparents
Not emotionally involved with child but authority figures
Describe the development of definitions of friendship across development
- young children = rewards/costs
- middle childhood = shared interests/reciprocal support
- adolescence = psychological, shared interest, shared values
2 factors that cause development in friendships
- more time spent with peers
- cognitive developments (perspective taking abilities)
define friendship
close, mutual, reciprocal, voluntary relationships with other people
cliques
small, voluntary, friendship-based groups (3-9 ppl)
- shared backgrounds, gender, race and ethnicity
crowds
less voluntary, reputation-based friendships (fall into a category)
functions of friendships
- emotional support
- buffer in stressful situations
- social comparison
- provides stimulation
- learn to develop social skills
Functions of cliques
- provides a social group to hangout with
- provides sense of belonging
- leads to romantic relationships (for straight teens)
function of crowds
- provides placement for individuals within society
- sense of identity and self-concept
- establishes social norms
5 sociometric peer statuses
- popular kids
- rejected kids
- controversial kids
- neglected kids
- average kids
popular kids
- lots of likes, few dislikes
- 12- 20% of kids
- maintain positive interactions
- good at reorganizing and regulating emotions
- good at perspective taking
- assertive but not aggressive
rejected kids
- lots of dislikes, few likes
- rejected - aggressive, withdrawn, both
rejected-aggressive kids
engage in instrumental and relational aggression (externalizing problems)
rejected withdrawn kids
poor social skills, socially anxious (internalizing problems)
rejected-aggressive/withdrawn
Face a bit/mix of both aggression and anxiety (tend to have academic problems)
controversial kids
- lots of both likes and dislikes (many pros and cons)
- can be helpful and cooperative but can also be disruptive and aggressive
neglected kids
- no likes or dislikes
- shy and lack social skills
- 6-7% of kids
average kids
- few likes, and few dislikes (few pros and cons)
- most common status
- moderately social, average cognitive skills
perceived popularity
- Individuals who are known by their peers as “popular”
- Often associated with negative traits and not as dependent on prosocial behaviours (aggressiveness)
- Physically attractive (most of the time)
- variable = depends on changing norms
Perceived popularity - across race/ethicity
Black, Asian and LatinX children tend to be rated as less likeable (but this depends on context - classrooms, bias on the teachers end)
peer status across cultures
Prosocial behaviour and academic achievement is linked to likability and perceived popularity across both cultures (China and US).
- stronger connection in Chinese adolescents (prosocial behaviour = perceived popularity)
- weaker connection in US adolescents (prosocial behaviour is not as important for determining perceived popularity)
In what ways are online peer interactions different than face-to-face?
- anonymous
- different use of social cues
- different emphasis on physical appearance
- online - more public/long-lasting
- easier to find people who share interests
- 24/7 access to friends
- more quantifiable
Benefits to online peer interactions
- facilitates disclosure and intimacy
- increased social support
risks to online peer interactions
- challenging to resolve conflict
- lack social cues in conversation (misinterpretation)
Differences based in face-to-face social skills (online vs in-person peer interactions)?
- rich-get-richer hypothesis = children who already have strong social skills benefit from online interaction (able to build off of pre-existing relationships)
- social compensation hypothesis = more benefits for those who struggle with face to face interactions
What were the main findings in Mikami et al (2019)’s paper
- Online social interactions predict academic and emotional adjustment in the transition to university
- The good = greater connection with FB friends led to fewer psychopathology symptoms. For students high in perceived popularity deviant FB posts lead to stronger connection/attachment to university
- the bad = Less connection with FB friends who post deviant posts & engaged in verbal aggression led to lower GPA and less attachment to university
Dating trajectory in adolescence
- Interest in romantic partners (11-13) expressed within the self or to close friends
- casual dating/group-based dating within friendship group (14-15)
- stable relationships (15-18) with increased intimacy and romance
Who we want to date (in adolescence)?/what motivates dating?
- Early adolescence = status (“I will look cook dating Tristan”)
- Midd/late adolescence = internal attributes (“Kian is so funny”)
Influences on romantic relationships in adolescence
- good quality peer relationships
- supporting family relationships
- family factions (siblings, single parents, fam instability)
- media (watching romance on TV affects how we think of romance)
- culture (EU - earlier dating, Asia - later dating)
- sexual orientation (gay/les youth tend to date outside friendship groups)
functions of romantic relationships
- establishing autonomy
- development of intimacy
- sense of belonging
- feelings of self-worth
What outcomes are associated with starting to date early (10-12 yrs)?
- tend to be always serious
- linked with negative outcomes - more externalizing behaviours, delinquency, low social maturity)
What outcomes are associated with starting to date later than average (end of adolescence)?
- lead to delayed social development, lower self-esteem
- but some studies argue that this is encouraged
Piaget’s 3 stages of Moral development
- Pre-moral reasoning
- Heteronomous morality
- Autonomous morality
Pre-moral morality (Piaget)
- < 4 yrs
- kids don’t yet think about the world in right vs wrong
- “moral realism”
moral realism (pre-moral stage)
consequences of being good/bad are real
Heteronomous morality
- 4-7 yrs
- belief that parents make the rules (“Mom says Jam is bad, so Jam is bad”)
- tend to focus on the consequences (“breaking 10 glasses is worse than 1 even if it was an accident”)
- Imminent justice (“If he hadn’t stolen the apples, the bridge wouldn’t have fallen”)
- “moral reality”
Moral reality (heteronomous stage)
belief that rules exist in society and that these tules are real things that shape consequences (as adults, we know that rules are created by society and individuals - not “god”)
Autonomous morality
- 11-12 years
- child has developed the understanding of right vs wrong
- rules are a social agreement
- sensitivity to fairness and equality
- focus on motives and intentions (“intentionally breaking one glass is worse than accidentally breaking 10”)
- “moral realism”
moral relativism (autonomous morality)
what is considered to be right vs wrong varies across contexts and people
What are 2 factors that help children build morality?
- cognitive development
- interaction with peers
Support for Piaget’s theory on moral development
- moral reasoning correlates with performance on tests of cognitive development
- children increasingly think about intentions and motivations
critiques for Piaget’s theory of moral development
- underestimates children (children under the age of 4 do possess some understanding of morality)
- young children do consider the intentions aspect of morality
Kohlberg’s 3 stages of moral development
- pre-conventional (stage 1 and 2)
- conventional (stage 3 and 4)
- post conventional (stage 5 and 6)
stage 1 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
punishment and obedience orientation
- obedience and punishment
- behaviour is driven by avoiding punishment
stage 2 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
Instrumental and exchange orientation
- individual interest
- behaviour is driven by self-interest and rewards
stage 3 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity orientation (“good girl/good boy”)
- interpersonal
- behaviour is driven by social approval
stage 4 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
social systems and conscience orientation (“law in order”)
- authority
- behaviour is driven by obeying authority and conforming to social order
stage 5 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
social contract of individual rights orientation
- social contract
- behaviour is driven by balance of social order and individual rights
stage 6 (Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages)
Universal ethical principles
- universal ethics
- behaviour is driven by internal moral principles
According to Kohlberg, development is not ____ or ____ but is based on _____.
Maturational, directly taught, advances in cognition
Principle of care
- proposed by Carol Gilligan
- critique of Kohlberg’s stage theory as he ignored gender differences
- “caring and taking responsibility for others” - common trait in women
cross cultural differences in the reaching of each stage of morality
- US/north America = end stage of development would be stage 5 (more exposure to social interaction)
- In some rural communities = end stage of development would be stage 2-3
3 moral principles
- ethic of autonomy
- ethic of community
- ethic of divinity
Altruistic motives
Wanting to help others, not for external rewards or social approval but because of empathy, sympathy, conscience and situational influences (i.e., like our friends)
Individual differences in prosocial behaviour across age
- Increases with development
- continues across age (kids who are more prosocial tend to become adults who are also prosocial)
Individual differences in prosocial behaviour in genetics
- Identical twins tend to be more similar in pro-sociality (there is no specific gene for this but there seem to be personality traits that influence it)
After a traumatic event, does pro sociability increase or decrease in children?
1 month after the event, pro sociability seems to increase in 9 year olds but decreases in 6 year olds (for all children - it tends to return to the baseline after 3 years)
Cultural similarities and differences in prosocial behaviours
Rochat et al (2009) conducted the dictator game in children aged 3 and 5 across cultures and found that 3 year olds tend to share more, 5 year olds tend to share less.
In the US, there tends to be a trend for less sharing of resources (individualism) and in countries like China, Peru and Fiji, people tend to share more (collectivism)
Instrumental aggression
premeditated aggression (planned out)
Reactive aggression
aggression in response to a trigger (behaviour of others)
physical aggression
Intent to harm (physically) others
verbal aggression
Threats, name-calling, yelling
social/relational aggression
directed towards damaging the reputation of others and or relationships
Trends in aggression across development (Physical aggression)
High in toddlerhood and early childhood, decreases afterwards (due to language and theory of mind)
Trends in aggression across development (social aggression)
increases in middle childhood/adolescence (more common amongst girls)
Why is studying aggression across development important?
Provides evidence of continuity - kids who tend to be more aggressive in childhood tend to become more aggressive adults
Describe various influences on aggression
- biological (genetics)
- parents (harsh, punitive, high conflict)
- peers (time spent with other anti-social peers)
- differences in patterns of thinking (more hostility)
Hostile attribution bias
the tendency to act towards situations in more of a hostile manner often leads to more aggressive tendencies
How common is cheating in youth?
80-90% of youth
why do adolescents and children cheat?
- more likely to get away with it in adolescence
- peer pressures
- not enough time to study/poor study habits
- lack of interest
what are some influences towards cheating behaviours?
- situational - children are more likely to cheat when they are not being monitored by a supervisor
- peers - children are more likely to cheat if their peers are also cheating
- mindset - children who have more of a fixed mindset are more likely to cheat
- praise - children who are praised with “smart”, “good at this” rather than “that must have taken a lot of effort” are more likely to cheat
what did Zhao et al. (2018) study on cheating behaviours find?
Children are more likely to cheat if they overhear that another child is smart
