PSYC 315 MT 2

Theories of Social Development

• Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development [1]

  • Focused on understanding the causes of psychological illness [1a].

  • Proposed that individuals are born with powerful unconscious urges, namely sexual and aggressive desires (ID) [1b].

  • These biological drives conflict with reality and societal expectations (Superego) [1c].

  • The Ego mediates between the ID and Superego [1d].

  • The resolution of these conflicts leaves an imprint on development [1e].

  • Most of Freud's ideas are not supported by current research as many are too vague to test [1f].

  • Legacy includes highlighting the role of early experience, the importance of parent-child relationships, and leading to the development of other comprehensive theories of development [1g].

• Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development [2]

  • Focused on the Ego and argued it does more than just balance the ID and Superego [2a].

  • Emphasized that social and environmental factors interact with the Ego to shape development [2b].

  • Each period of life has a central psychosocial crisis, a challenge that must be faced [2c]. These crises are:

  • Infancy: can I trust the world? [2ci]

  • Toddlerhood: can I control my own behaviours? [2ci]

  • Early childhood: can I become independent of my parents? [2ci]

  • Middle childhood: can I master the skills I need to adapt? [2ci]

  • Adolescence: who am I? [2ci]

  • Young adulthood: can I give myself fully to another? [2ci]

  • Middle age: what can I offer other generations to follow? [2ci]

  • Old age: have I found contentment + satisfaction? [2ci]

  • Legacy includes the concept of lifespan development and the importance of identity development, particularly in adolescence [3di, 3dii].

  • Critiques include underestimation of cultural influences and vagueness [3diii].

• Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model [3]

  • Takes an ecological perspective, emphasizing the need to consider context in development [3a].

  • Views development as occurring within a complex system of relationships [3b].

  • Key components of the model:

    • The child: biologically based dispositions actively influencing development [3b].

    • Microsystem: immediate environment [3b].

    • Mesosystem: connections between microsystems [3b].

    • Exosystem: indirect environments that the child doesn't directly interact with but influence their experiences (e.g., a parent’s job) [3b, 4].

    • Macrosystem: cultural values, laws, customs, resources [4].

    • Chronosystem: time period, age of the child (e.g., COVID-19 impacts) [4].

      • Focuses on how or how much external contexts play a role in development [4].

      • Legacy includes the broad role of context beyond the immediate environment and its influence on policy [4].

      • Critiques include vagueness, difficulty to test, and little emphasis on individual biology [4].

The Self

• Cognitive construction: mental representation of oneself [5].

• Social construction: influenced by interactions and experiences with others [5].

• Self-concept [5]

• Infancy: By around 18 months, infants start to show self-recognition by passing the rouge test/mirror self-recognition [5]. Before this, they might try to rub the dot off the mirror or not respond [5]. After 18 months, they recognize the dot is on their own face and respond differently to others than themselves [5].

• ~2 years: Recognize self in pictures, label self using own name or "me," and use category labels for self [5].

• Early childhood: Can describe themselves, focusing on concrete, observable features and tend to be unrealistically positive [6].

• Middle childhood: More integrated self-concept, begin to refer to global characteristics (e.g., "I'm creative" vs. "I painted this"), more realistic and balanced, linked to actual competencies/evaluation or social comparison [6].

• Adolescence: Nuanced view of self, understand the role of situations, context, and perspective, more abstract and psychological, begin to think about the future and possible selves, and develop a more coherent/integrated self [6].

• False self behaviours: intentionally presenting a false impression to others, most common in romantic relationships and teens with parents, least common with friends [7].

• Personal fable: belief that one's own experience is unique and novel [7].

• Imaginary audience: belief that everyone is focused on you [7].

• Influences on self-concept: cognitive development, parents (warmth and support lead to more positive self-concept in teens), family narratives, peers, culture (individualist vs. collectivist cultures influence self-descriptive tasks with variations in public, private, and collective self-descriptors) [7, 8]. Neurodivergence (Autistic individuals may focus less on self as seen through others, and adolescents may talk less about possible selves, focusing more on the present) [8].

• Self-esteem [8]

  • Difficult to assess until around age 8 [8].

  • Starts high, declines throughout childhood, and generally increases by mid-adolescence, with lots of individual differences [8].

• Influences:Gender: Higher self-esteem for cisgender boys than girls, consistent across cultures [8].

• Culture: In collectivist cultures, the accomplishment of the group is tied to self-esteem; these cultures do not promote comparison between others [8, 9].

• Race: Black youth in North America tend to have higher self-esteem, Asian American youth have the lowest, and Hispanic youth vary [9].

• Approval of others: parents, peers, teachers [9].

• Societal standards: feelings about physical attractiveness are a significant factor [9].

• Impact: High self-esteem is associated with better performance in school and better well-being, while low self-esteem is linked to emotional and behavioural problems [9]. Self-esteem boosting programs have not been very effective; positive outcomes may lead to higher self-esteem rather than the other way around [9].

  • High self-esteem is only beneficial when "secure" (earned, based on accomplishments) [10].

• Identity [10]

  • Description or definition of the self: a theory of oneself [10]. The extent to which individuals feel secure about who they are, were, and who they can become [10].

• Erikson: Adolescence is the crisis of identity vs. role confusion [10].

• Psychosocial moratorium: a period where people are free from excessive obligation and can experiment with different roles [10].

• James Marcia's Identity Statuses: Based on exploration and commitment [10].

• Moratorium: exploring with no commitment; can be associated with high levels of anxiety, conflict with authority, and correlates may depend on the length of exploration and rumination [10, 11].

• Identity achievement: committed AND explored; associated with high achievement, maturity, intimacy, and higher agency (sense of control and responsibility) [11].

• Identity diffusion: not much exploration and no commitment; associated with higher levels of behavioural and emotional problems, difficulties with relationships, and more likely to report low levels of parental warmth/support [11, 12].

• Identity foreclosure: committed to an identity but haven't explored; tend to show low anxiety and general life satisfaction but associated with higher levels of prejudice, inflexibility, need for social approval, lower sense of autonomy, and more common with controlling or overly protective parents [12].

  • It is a continuous process; it's common to move between moratorium and identity achievement (MAMA achievement) [12].

• Ethnic Racial Identity (ERI) [12]

• Ethnic Racial Identification: labelling and knowledge seem to develop in childhood [12].

• Ethnic Racial Identity: thoughts and feelings about one's race and identity [12]. Questions of identity seem heightened in adolescence [13].

• Process:Unexamined ethnic identity: experience/comments lead to realization of a "difference" [13].

• Exploration: exploration of social groups with similar races/ethnicities [13].

• Resolution [13].

• Content:Affirmation/private regard: how good or bad you feel about your ethnic/racial group; tends to be a protective factor associated with better outcomes [13].

• Public regard: how positively a person believes other people view their ethnic/racial group [13, 14].

• Centrality: how important a person's ethnic or racial group is to their identity; may make one more vulnerable to stereotype threat [14].

• Salience: how important a person feels their ethnic/racial group is to a particular situation [14].

• Identifying with majority and minority culture (Berry’s model of acculturation): Assimilated, bicultural/integration (often associated with positive outcomes but not always, may be difficult for indigenous youth), marginalized, separated (for indigenous youth may be more linked with positive outcomes) [14].

• Positive ERI is associated with: lower levels of depressive symptoms, higher self-esteem, positive academic outcomes, and protection in the face of discrimination [15]. Discrimination is linked to less ideal adjustment, but higher ERI may be protective [15].

• Influences on ERI:Ethnic racial socialization: where children learn about the values, attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions associated with race/ethnicity; more common in marginalized groups with themes of understanding/valuing one’s culture and dealing with racism [15, 16].

• Sladek paper: ERI development in teens occurs within systems of racism/oppression, and learning about ERI through family is often connected with community, peers, media, and school [16, 17].

• ERI in School: ERI projects are associated with higher self-esteem, lower depressive symptoms, and higher grades [17]. Limitations include limited research, mostly with monoethnic youth, and not considering multiracial youth [17].

• ERI development in multiracial youth: may be particularly challenging, more likely to report ERI exploration but less affirmation/positive ERI and less centrality; parents may have different attitudes in socializing multiracial children and youth may experience racial/ethnic invalidation; may be more fluid and change over situations and time, and may carry assets such as reflection on identity and flexible thinking [17, 18].

• ERI development in White youth: limited research, tend to discuss ERI as less important, parents engage in less ERI socialization, and youth report less positive ERI (less exploration, affirmation, centrality) [18].

Gender Development

• Sex assigned at birth: based on objectively measurable biological factors [19].

• Gender/gender identity: a person's self as gendered (woman/man, etc.) [19].

• How thinking about gender develops and changes with age:

• Infancy/toddlerhood: Babies a few months old can discriminate between male and female based on superficial clues [19]. At around 18 months to 2 years, some awareness of gender stereotypes emerges (looking longer at own-gender stereotyped toys and gender-inconsistent pictures) [19, 20]. Babies look longer at surprising things, like a man putting on makeup [20].

• Childhood: Changes in cognitive development lead to shifts in thinking about gender [20].

• Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory of gender:Gender identity: 2-2.5 years old [20].

• Gender stability: 3-4 years old [20].

• Gender consistency: 5-7 years old (before this age, children assume someone's gender changes if they take on characteristics of another gender) [20, 21]. This is similar in age to passing conservation tasks (Piaget) [21].

  • Shift from gender essentialism to thinking of gender roles as socially influenced; by 9 years old, children generally believe gender roles are socially influenced [21].

  • Increase in knowledge of gender stereotypes, with a peak of rigid application at 5-7 years, followed by a decline [21].

• Adolescence:Gender role intensification: heightened concern about adhering to traditional gender roles, potentially more in one's own behaviour and more common in early/middle adolescence [21, 22].

• Gender role flexibility: allowing for traditional gender conventions to be transcended, potentially more in beliefs and more common later in adolescence [22].

• Gender-related differences in behaviour and thought in childhood and adolescence: More variation within genders than between genders, and differences are based on averages (don't apply to all individuals). Most research has assumed participants to be cisgender [22].

• Infancy and childhood: few physical differences based on sex assigned at birth [22].

• Puberty: physical growth (males are bigger after puberty), development of primary and secondary sex characteristics (hormone changes for reproduction, breasts, genitals, hair), leading to an increase in sex-linked differences [23].

• Cognitive differences: Girls slightly better at verbal IQ tasks, better grades/school performance, more positive feelings about school leading to more effort, and more likely than boys to not think about their gender as really smart. Boys better at spatial tasks [23].

• Play: Toys are often stereotyped. Boys tend to engage in more physically active play, while girls engage in more cooperative play. In fantasy play, boys are more likely to be combative and heroes [24].

• Emotions: Girls report expressing more emotions except for anger, appear better at emotion regulation at earlier ages, and are more likely to experience depression and low self-esteem [24].

• Interpersonal dynamics:Aggression: Boys more likely to engage in direct aggression, mixed findings on indirect/relational aggression [24, 25].

• Altruism: Girls more likely to show kindness and share, boys less likely to think about their own gender as being really nice [25].

Intelligence Testing

• Alfred Binet (1905) and Theodore Simon: Developed the first IQ test relying on "higher" mental processes like memory, problem-solving, language, and judgement. Introduced the concept of mental age [26].

• Louis Terman: Brought IQ tests to North America [26].

• Characteristics of a good test: [26, 27]

• Reliability: consistency of the test.

• Split-half reliability: first half of the test should yield similar results to the second half [26].

• Test-retest reliability: scores today should be similar to scores next week (reliability decreases with longer time intervals) [27].

• Validity: whether the test measures what it intends to measure.

• Content validity: do the questions reflect the construct of intelligence? [27].

• Construct validity: does the overall construction of the test reflect intelligence? [27].

• Predictive validity: should predict things associated with intelligence [27].

• Lack of bias:Content-validity bias: is the content equally valid for different groups? [27].

• Predictive-validity bias: are outcomes equally predictive for different groups? [27].

• Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: [27]

  • Mean score of 100 [27].

  • Originally used IQ = (mental age/chronological age) x 100 [27].

  • Scores are now based on deviation (how a child scores relative to the average at their age) [27, 28].

  • Initially provided one general score, now provides subscores [28].

  • One of the two most commonly used tests with children [28].

• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC): [28]

  • The most common IQ test for children [28].

  • Provides a general score and 5 composite scores [28].

  • Scores are based on deviation, with the majority of people scoring within one standard deviation of the mean [28].

• Psychometric Approach to Intelligence: Intelligence is operationalized as what IQ tests measure [28].

• How to define intelligence: [28, 29]

• General intelligence (g): a single factor of intelligence, resulting in one overall IQ score [28].

• Multiple abilities/processes: intelligence is divided into different aspects.

• Crystallized intelligence: accumulated knowledge and facts [29].

• Fluid intelligence: ability to reason and solve novel problems [29].

• Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence:Analytical intelligence: problem-solving abilities [29].

• Practical intelligence: ability to adapt to everyday life [29].

• Creative intelligence: using experiences to foster insight [29].

• Gardner’s multiple intelligences: proposes around 8 different types of intelligences/skills, going beyond the three perspectives mentioned above [29].

• Individual Differences in IQ: [29-31]

• Genetics: Sharing DNA is a good predictor of similar IQ scores [29].

• Gene-environment correlation: genetic tendency towards higher IQ can correlate with the environment through passive (parents select environments), evocative (child's behaviour elicits certain responses), and active (child seeks out certain environments) effects [30].

  • Identical twins show increasing similarity in IQ with age, while fraternal twins show decreasing similarity [30].

• Environment:Schooling: more schooling is associated with better IQ test performance (e.g., kids with late birthdays get more schooling in a grade) [30, 31].

• Family/home environment: warmer and more inviting homes are associated with higher IQs [31].

• SES (Socioeconomic Status): parents with more resources can provide stimulating environments, nutritious food, and medical care, leading to higher IQs [31].

• Time period: IQ scores have shown a trend of increasing over time, likely due to improvements in schooling, nutrition, supports, toys, and programming [31].

• IQ Testing Today: [31-33]

  • Administered and scored by trained professionals [31].

  • Used to qualify for learning disability diagnoses and supports, special education classes, and giftedness programs [32].

  • Sometimes used in court cases and policy (e.g., regarding the death penalty in the US) [32].

    • Correlated with many variables such as job performance, mortality, and attitudes, making it a tool for research and policy decisions (e.g., studying the impact of lead poisoning) [32]. Research has shown that even small amounts of lead exposure can be associated with a drop in IQ, leading to policy changes like banning lead in gasoline and paint [32, 33].

      • Can be used to study the impacts of poverty, exposure to violence, pollution, and breaks from school [33].

• Limitations and Dangers of IQ Testing: [33, 34]

  • Test performance is sensitive to motivation, coaching, and can be biased (WEIRD samples, gender, culture) [33]. Testing using language associated with higher SES can be problematic (e.g., "regatta") [33].

  • Attempts to counteract bias include "culture-fair" tests using shapes instead of language [33].

    • IQ scores are often misinterpreted as evidence of a person's underlying mental ability, without considering cultural knowledge, motivation, coaching, stress, hunger, etc. [34].

      • Historical misuse of IQ tests in the eugenics movement, which aimed to improve the human race through controlled breeding based on heritable characteristics, leading to discriminatory policies against low SES and racialized people, including forced sterilization and marriage restrictions [34, 35].

• Group Differences in IQ Scores: [35, 36]

• Gender: Differences observed in spatial abilities (e.g., mental rotation tasks where males tend to perform better, with differences emerging later in development). These are complex and still under investigation [35].

• Race: Marginalized groups tend to perform worse than white groups on average [35]. However, it is false to interpret these differences as due to genetic advantage for higher-scoring groups, as race is a social construct [35].

  • Reasons for observed differences include access to resources, SES, social class differences, culturally biased tests, and stereotype threat [36].

• Stereotype Threat: [36, 37]

  • Awareness of negative stereotypes associated with one's social group regarding intelligence can negatively impact performance by reducing cognitive resources [36].

    • The Picho & Schmader paper extended the understanding of stereotype threat beyond WEIRD populations and found that believing others hold gender stereotypes and one's own endorsement of these stereotypes contribute to stereotype threat, leading girls to perform worse in math when they believed others expected boys to do better [36, 37].

• Intelligence Mindsets: [37, 38]

  • Predicts response to challenges and failure and is associated with academic outcomes [37].

• Fixed mindset/entity theory: intelligence and talent are believed to be fixed at birth [37].

• Growth mindset/incremental theory: intelligence and talent are believed to be able to change over time through effort and learning [37].

  • Teaching a growth mindset through intervention is linked with better academic performance. Students praised for effort tend to want harder problems [37]. May be most beneficial for low-achieving students and when teachers and peers are also supportive of a growth mindset and when contexts allow for growth [37, 38]. However, not all studies find a link between growth mindset and better performance, and the benefits may vary across individuals [38].

• How to Improve IQ Testing: [38, 39]

  • Improve test structure/design [38].

  • Counteract stereotype threat (e.g., through mindfulness training) [38].

• Dynamic assessment: aims to examine learning potential and how much a child can learn with assistance [38].

  • Shift how we think about IQ, considering context and understanding that it does not reflect fixed ability [38, 39].

  • Encourage a growth mindset, emphasizing that intelligence can change through effort, learning, and encouragement [39].

• Sun et al. Paper: Cultural Differences in Mindsets: [39, 40]

  • Compared mindsets and their association with academic performance between US and Chinese youth [39].

  • Found that Chinese youth were more likely to have fixed mindsets about intelligence [40].

  • For US youth, mindset was associated with math scores, but for Chinese youth, there was no such correlation, suggesting cultural differences in how mindsets relate to academic achievement [40]. This might be because Chinese youth are more likely to associate learning and achievement with the "purposes of life" and hard work, rather than innate intelligence [39, 40].