Studied by 9 people
Roles of Peers and Play
Howes and Philippsen (1998)
Found that toddlers who engaged in more complex play with peers were more likely to be prosocial and less aggressive or withdrawn around age nine
2-6 year olds
begin to move out of toy manipulation as a form of interaction to more complex social skills such as group dynamics and pretend play.
As play becomes more abstract (exhibiting non-literal meaning behind a behavior) children begin to match the pretend actions of their peers.
Assignment of Social roles begins to form
Studies show that preschool aged children prefer to play with social peers (peer rejection has a big role in children around this age)
Middle to late childhood (6-12 years)
Children have begun attending school, diversifying their peer group
more rule based play
friendships change drastically
Adolescence (12-18)
cliques form
less time with parents and more time with friends
Piaget (1932)
Argued that children have a perspective taking approach when interacting with their peers
when children run into differing perspectives, the difference forces them to develop cognitively as children are pushed to engage in higher levels of reasoning
Vygotsky (1978)
believed that hierarchal interactions were more important in playing with peers
interactions with more knowledgeable partners is important
Damon and Killen (1982)
showed that constructive discussion amongst peers is a factor of cognitive development.
The study evaluated the level of moral reasoning in children through structured interviews using a set of ethical dilemmas. Children were required to make a choice, justify it, and then the researchers analyzed the responses.
Results: Researchers concluded that the sharing of alternative viewpoints among peers results in accelerated cognitive development and the understanding of differing perspectives.
Sylva, Bruner, and Genova (1976)
presented groups of preschool children with a problem solving task. They were to retrieve food that was positioned just out of reach, and were given two sticks, neither long enough to get the food, and a clamp.
Group 1 watched an adult join two sticks with a clamp.
Group 2 made attempts to attach the clamp to a stick
Group 3 watched an adult solve the problem in its entirety
Group 4 could play with the objects outside the problem-solving context. They could freely manipulate the sticks and clamps.
Group 5 was presented with the problem-solving task without any preparation.
Results: Group 4 (play group) was just as successful as group 3 (watching an adult), and both did much better than the other three groups.
Manuilenko (1948)
investigated the role of play in the development of self-regulation by comparing children in three conditions while they played.
Three Conditions were:
Condition 1 – The child played the role of sentry in a game while the other children play in the same room.
Condition 2 – The child play the role of sentry in the same game but are required to stay in a different room.
Condition 3 – The child was directed to stand still while in the presence of their peer group.
RESULTS:
Manuilenko observed that the amount of time the child would spend standing still was much higher in condition one. For children ages 4-6 this was particularly true.
In condition two, the amount of time spent standing was lower than condition one, and condition three was the lowest.
It was observed that if peers were present in the same room and playing the same game, they’d reinforce the child’s behavior, stating “you should not move” to the sentry.
Hallows and Cowan (1973)
Conducted research on children who grew up on isolated farms in Norway
RESULTS: The children’s chances for social interaction with peers was limited to very rare encounters. When researchers compared their social interactions with controls, it was observed that social skills were impaired, but not cognitive skills.
Note
Flashcard