PSYC 315 - Part 3

purpose of family

purpose of family

• promote survival

• provide emotional and financial support

• socialization

socialization

process through which children acquire values, standards, knowledge, behaviours seen as appropriate for their role in culture

benefits of parents

• closeness to mother at age 16 = marital satisfaction at age 32

• low father involvement at age 7 and 11 = low exam performance at age 16 and criminal records at 21

• parenting training/interventions = children show reduction in behavioural problems and delinquency

aspects of parenting

• warmth/support/acceptance/responsiveness and control/demandingness dimensions

  • permissive parent, authoritative parent, uninvolved parent, authoritarian parent

• discipline: reinforcement/punishment, power assertion, inductive discipline

permissive parent

highly supportive but makes few rules and trusts rather than monitors - also called indulgent

• high support and low control dimensions

authoritative parent

highly supportive and closely monitors and sets rules

• high support and control dimensions

uninvolved parent

sets few rules, does not monitor, offers little active support

• little support and little control dimensions

authoritarian parent

sets many rules and closely monitors but offers little support

• high control and low support dimensions

parent relations

conflict = poorer outcomes for kids

• divorce associated with increased problems in kids

why does divorce cause problems in children?

• parent conflict

• stress

• diminished parenting

• economic difficulties/changes

• social difficulties/changes

• absence of parent/fear of absence

• relocation

same sex/gender parents

no difference in children’s adjustment, personality, achievement, sexual orientation

• report feeling different/subjected to social slights - still feel positive about their families

• parenting quality is what is important, not gender or sexuality

sibling relationships

shaped by parents and parent-child relationships - typically neither vertical (hierarchy) or horizontal (equal) power structures

• marked by warmth/support and conflict

• non-voluntary

• shaped by age, age gaps, gender, biological vs. adopted vs. step siblings vs. half-siblings

caregiver sibling relationship

one sibling serves as a quasi-parent for the other

buddy sibling relationship

both siblings like each other and try to be like each other

casual/uninvolved sibling relationship

siblings have little to do with each other

critical/conflictual/rival relationship

one sibling tries to dominate the other - teasing, fighting

functions of sibling relationships

• practice communication and social skills

• buffer for peer rejection, parent conflict, stressful experiences

• try out new behaviours

• opportunity for learning about gender

• promote individuality

only children

• siblings are not necessary for healthy development

• only children tend to have higher self-esteem, do better in school

• no differences in china - more normative to be an only child? more contact with cousins?

grandparents

useful for survival - boost emotional well-being, serve as buffers in children growing up in risky contexts

• different roles: influential, supportive, passive, authority-oriented (least common), detached (most common)

culture and parenting

• use of warmth/support and control in all cultures - warmth/support appears beneficial for development

• across cultures: differences in how warmth/support and control are expressed, different “ideal” of control

• what is valued as good parenting differs

• there is a lot of variability within cultures

Chinese parents

less warmth? → tend to withhold praise, believed to lead to self-satisfied children

more controlling? → belief in deeply-involved parents, respect for family/authority

• some studies show no negative effects of higher-control parenting in Chinese families, but more recent studies show similar negative effects of high-control in Chinese and North American families

Latino parents

more warmth? → familismo: desire for family ties, for family support

more controlling? → respeto: fulfill obligations, maintain harmonious relationships

• some studies find positive outcomes linked with warmth + hostile control

cultural normativeness

not all parents within a culture think and behave the same - parents’ practices not congruent with others in their cultural context adaptive for children?

culture and siblings

• which is seen as primary bond - parent-child or sibling

• amount of time spent together

• caregiving roles

culture and extended family

large cultural and ethnic differences in proportion of children living with extended families - black families more likely to live with larger extended family (helps with child-rearing, reduce costs, transmission of culture)

friendships

close, mutual, reciprocal, voluntary relationship

friends as toddlers

live nearby, have nice toys, like to play

• rewards vs. costs

friends as kids

shared interests, take care of/support each other

friends as adolescents

shared interests and values, engage in self disclosure and intimacy

• from developed perspective taking

function of friendships

• emotional and physical support

• buffer in stressful times

• development of social skills

• social comparison

• stimulation

• conflict and resolution

• model and reinforce behaviour

cliques

smaller, voluntary, friendship-based groups

• shared interests and attitudes

• tend to have shared background - initially same gender move to mixed gender, initially mixed race move to same race

• 50 to 75% of teens are part of one

crowds

reputation-based groups, less voluntary

function of cliques

• same benefits of friendships and social groups

• sense of belongingness

• for straight teens, can support/guide interest in romantic relationships

function of crowds

• locate individuals within social environment

• contribute to sense of identity and self-concept

• establish social norms

peer status

usually measured through sociometric status - how liked/dislike someone as by their peers

• most children receive average ratings (30-60%)

popular/likeable peer status

• skilled at initiating and maintaining positive interactions

• good at recognizing and regulating emotions

• good at perspective taking

• rated by teachers as cooperative, friendly, helpful, leaders

• assertive, not pushy

• not always the same as perceived popularity

rejected peer status

• rejected-aggressive: instrumental and relational aggression, physical aggression, bullying (externalizing problems)

• rejected-withdrawn: poor social skills, socially anxious, difficulty with social goals (internalizing problems)

• rejected-aggressive/withdrawn (academic problems)

controversial peer status

share characteristics of both popular and rejected children → can be helpful/cooperative, but can also be disruptive/aggressive

• less stable status, can change

neglected peer status

timid, shy, lack of social skills - often not bothered by classification

• less stable status, can change

average peer status

most common - moderately sociable, average cognitive skills

what leads to having a certain peer status?

• social skills/social behaviour

• temperament

• interpretations → hostile attribution bias, rejection sensitivity

• parents

• physical attractiveness

• name (?), race and ethnicity (?)

perceived popularity

• mix of positive and negative traits

• social skills

• aggression: instrumental, relational

• physical attractiveness

• more variable, based on changing norms

think Regina in Mean Girls

cultural variability in likability, perceived popularity, admiration (Zhang et al., 2019)

between China (collectivist) and US (individualistic) - students asked to give who they like the most, think are the most popular, and admire the most

• prosocial behaviour and academic achievement linked with likability and perceived popularity across both cultures - more linked for Chinese adolescents

• positive behaviour less predictive of perceived popularity in US

• cultural values may impact peer status

dating

tends to begin ~14-15 years

• early adolescence: dating for status

• middle/late adolescence: dating for kindness, honesty, intelligence

influences on romantic relationships

• peer relationships

• family relationships

• family factors (older siblings, single parents, family instability)

• culture

• media? sexual orientation?

functions of romantic relationships

• establish autonomy

• develop intimacy

• sense of belonging

• feelings of self-worth

• status

• furthering development of gender/sexual identity

starting romantic relationships

• early starters = atypical sequence, associated with negative outcomes (externalizing behaviours)

• late bloomers = link to delayed social development, lower self-esteem

impact of romantic relationships

• Positive: more social acceptance, social competence

• Negative: more risk-taking behaviour

outcomes vary based on culture, timing, characteristics of romantic partners, relationship quality

potential negative components of relatonships

• breaking up (most common trigger for depressive episode)

• dating violence (depression, suicidal ideation, drug use, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school

online peer interactions

distinct from face to face?

• increased anonymity

• different social cues

• different emphasis on physical appearance

• more public, long-lasting

• easier to find similar others

• all-day access to friends

• more quantifiable

online social interactions and academic/emotional adjustment to university (Mikami et al., 2019)

UBC jumpstart students monitored for their facebook use during their first week of university

• good: greater connection with Facebook friends = fewer psychopathology symptoms

• bad: facebook friends’ deviant posts = lower gpa, verbal aggression = less attachment to university (stronger for students with low face-to-face social acceptance)

• online friendships can serve some of the same functions as in-person

piaget’s theory of morality

• <4 years: premoral reasoning

• 4-7 years: heteronomous morality

• >11/12 years: autonomous morality (morality of cooperation)

• evolves with cognitive development and time with peers

premoral reasoning (piaget)

less than 4 years old - lack of moral compass

heteronomous morality (piaget)

• rules from authority (parents)

• focus on consequences

• moral realism, immanent justice

• 4-7 year

moral realism

things are taken at face value - moral claims report facts and are true

immanent justice

rules are fixed and punishment automatically follows bad behaviour

autonomous morality (piaget)

• rules as social agreement

• sensitive to fairness and equality

• focus on motives and intentions

• moral relativism

• >11/12 years

moral relativism

moral judgments are relative to specific culture or individual, there are no universal moral truths

support for piaget’s theory of moral development

moral reasoning correlated with performance on tests of cognitive development and children do increasingly consider intentions and motives

• underestimated children: kids younger than 4 think about morality and young children do consider intentions

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development

moral dilemmas - focus on children’s reasoning, not on specific answers

• Level 1: pre-conventional moral reasoning

• Level 2: conventional moral reasoning

• Level 3: post-conventional moral reasoning

level 1: pre-conventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg)

Stage 1: punishment and obedience orientation

• right = obeying authority, avoiding punishment

Stage 2: instrumental and exchange orientation

• right = what will result in rewards - tit for tat

Level 2: conventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg)

Stage 3: mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity orientation

• right = what is expected by people/society

• importance of being good, social acceptance

Stage 4: social system and conscience orientation

• right = doing one’s duty, adhering to authority, upholding social order

• law and order

level 3: post-conventional moral reasoning

Stage 5: social contract of individual rights orientation

• right = uphold rules in best interest of group, universal values of life/liberty

• emphasis on law, but willingness to change with rational considerations

Stage 6: universal ethical principles (now combined with stage 5)

• right = self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles of justice

• civil disobedience

support for Kohlberg’s theory

not maturation, not directly taught - based on advances in cognition (own thinking, discussions with peers) and individual differences/influences of family, school, peers

• criticisms: no focus on gender or culture (differences in moral principles and moral development)

antisocial behaviour

aggression, cheating

instrumental aggression

motivated by a desire to obtain a goal

reactive aggression

in response to other’s behaviour

physical aggression

intent to physically harm

• high in toddlerhood and early childhood

verbal aggression

threats, name-calling, yelling

social/relational aggression

directed towards damaging reputation/relationships

• increases in middle childhood/adolescence (more for girls)

cheating

many forms - is common in youth (80-90% in high school)

• appears lower in childhood, rapid increase in adolescence

why do kids and teens cheat?

• pressure for performance, high grades

• social comparison

• not enough time to prepare/study

• lack of interest

• perceive teacher to be unfair or uncaring

cheating influences

• situation: more common when not being monitored

• peers: more common when observe/perceive others to be cheating

• mindset: more common for fixed mindset about intelligence

• praise: more common when told you are “smart” (maintain ability) - children more likely to cheat after hearing classmate is smart

prosocial behaviour

actions intended to help or benefit other people

• motivation behind is altruism

• altruistic motives

altruistic motives

helping others not for external rewards or social approval

nature vs nurture of prosocial behaviour

nature: heritable genetic traits that strongly contribute

• young children exhibit altruism ~14 months old

nurture: socialization important

development of prosocial behaviour

• rapid increases in toddler and preschooler period

• similar overtone of selfishness at 2

• self-interest reduces 3-5 years

• early self-interest less pronounced in collectivist cultures

socialization

process through which we learn norms, values, behaviours, social skills essential for competent participation in society

• culture is the backdrop

• family/parents are starting point + base for interaction

• children are active agents - caregivers adapt actions for each child

cultural differences in prosocial behaviours

distinction between collectivist and individualistic cultures is simplistic, obscures intracultural variability

• children in collectivist cultures are more altruistic - cultural emphasis on prioritizing well-being of community

• Asian children showed more passive sharing, American children showed more elicited sharing

prosocial value emphasis between cultures

• collectivistic societies: emphasize obedience and conformity

• individualistic societies: emphasize child autonomy and independence

basis of prosocial motivation between cultures

India: altruistic acts viewed as moral obligations

US: norms of equality may play stronger role

parental effects on prosocial behaviour

children more prosocial when they have formed secure attachments with their parents and have close relationships with siblings

profile of parents with prosocial kids

• authoritative

• avoid using harsh punishments/strict rules

• warm and enjoy shared activities

• model, encourage, explain why prosocial behaviour is expected

parenting practices related to prosocial behaviour in kids

• parental warmth

• positive socialization fostering emotional competence

• offering material rewards for prosocial behaviour decreases later pro-sociality

• encouraging through praise and encouraging participation in household chores may be effective in fostering prosocial behaviours

cultural differences in parental prosocial instruction

Delhi mothers

• emphasized hierarchical relatedness

• provided more opportunities to help at home, material rewards

• used punitive practices

• children more likely to help

German mothers

• used praise more frequently

• expected prosocial behaviour is be intrinsic

cross-cultural similarities and differences in parenting (Lansford, 2022)

• behaviour that promotes infants’ survival is similar across cultures

• belief systems, physical environment difference, beliefs about what child is capable of drive cultural variation in parenting

• cognitive stimulation (education, playing, reading, outside)

• warmth (physical affection vs. acts of service)

• control and monitoring (level of involvement)

• discipline (normality of different discipline forms)

children more likely to cheat after overhearing another classmate is smart (Zhao et al., 2018)

68% of 5 year olds cheated on a guessing game when overhearing adults talk about how smart a previous participant was, 3 years old did not have the same significant relationship

• praise is a powerful motivator for behaviour and shaper of moral development

cultural differences in development

• self-concept (relational/situational terms vs. internal/abstract terms)

• self-esteem (contributing to groups vs. individual accomplishments)

• parenting warmth and control

• scaffolding (physical/gestural vs. verbal)

• intelligence mindset (fixed vs. dynamic)

cultural similarities in development

• gender differences in aggression

• theory of mind/false belief tasks

• parenting (protection and nurturing)