EPSY405/PSYC465: Personality and Social Development - WEEK #14: PROXIMAL RELATIONSHIPS

Housekeeping

• The Proximal Relationships lecture is ~30% of Exam 4's content.

• ICES evaluation is due 5/8.

• Extra credit is due 5/5 at 11:59pm.

• There will be a list for the UIUC Skills Study by the end of the week.

• For the Big 5 Stability/Change lecture, 1 article = 1 DQ.

• Grad Students: Research Proposals are due TONIGHT

• Exam 4 is on Wednesday 5/14 in PSYCH 21 from 3-4:15pm.

Class Outline

• What are proximal relationships?

• Parents- Parenting Styles

  • Lansford et al. (2005): Examines physical discipline and children's adjustment across different cultures.

• Peers- Peer engagement in relation to well-being

  • Laursen et al. (2007): Focuses on how friendship moderates the relationship between social isolation and adjustment problems in young children.

  • van der Mey-Baijens et al. (2023): Studies the effect of perceived support from best friends on depressive symptoms during adolescence.

• Reminders

Proximal Relationships

• Proximal relationships include more than just parents and peers; they encompass any close, influential connections.

• Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory:

  • Microsystem: Family, school, peers - immediate environment.

  • Mesosystem: Interactions between microsystems, such as home and school.

  • Exosystem: Extended family, neighbors, health services, mass media - external environments in which the individual is not directly involved but are affected nonetheless.

  • Macrosystem: Attitudes and ideologies of the culture - overarching cultural values and beliefs.

  • Chronosystem: Environmental changes over the life course - sociohistorical circumstances and transitions over time.

Parents vs. Peers

• The struggle to find our own identity amidst varying expectations from parents and peers; navigating these different influences helps shape individual identity.

Parents/Caregivers

Parenting Styles

• Authoritarian: High standards, rigid, autocratic, obedience, status-oriented ("because I said so"), directive ("I'm the boss"). Involves punishment and strict control.

  • Outcome: Can lead to obedient but anxious and potentially resentful children.

• Authoritative: High responsiveness, warmth, supportiveness, enabling, supportive, flexible, assertive, democratic, with established rules and structure that promote self-regulation. Provides guidelines rather than strict commands.

  • Outcome: Generally associated with positive child outcomes like high self-esteem and social skills.

• Uninvolved: Low responsiveness, distance, uninterested, neglectful, absent, passive. Offers no guidelines or support.

  • Outcome: Often results in children who are insecure, lack self-control, and perform poorly in various areas.

• Permissive: Low standards, appeasement, child is "the boss," non-directive, over-involved, lenient, blurred roles, indulgent.

  • Outcome: Can lead to children who lack self-discipline and have problems with authority.

Parenting Styles Circumplex Inventory

• Extends to 8 blended styles, allowing for more nuanced differentiation.

• Uses _ and __ (Meisel et al., 2024) to categorize styles.

Research on Parenting Styles (1 of 3)

• Investigates how caregiver practices affect child outcomes, focusing on parental warmth's impact on adolescent self-esteem and internalization of social values in Spain, Portugal, and Brazil (Martinez et al., 2020).

Research on Parenting Styles (2 of 3)

• Psychological control is associated with internalizing and externalizing problems (Smetana, 2017).

• _ control guides and regulates children’s behavior (Smetana, 2017).

Research on Parenting Styles (3 of 3)

• Bradshaw et al. (2024) extension of Self-Determination Theory's Dual Process Model:

  • Parental autonomy support was linked to child well-being, fostering independence and self-reliance.

  • Psychologically controlling parenting was linked to child ill-being, undermining autonomy and creating distress.

  • Findings held across regions, degrees of individualism, child age, and sex, indicating broad applicability.

Do these styles hold up in different contexts?

• Authoritarian parenting is widespread globally but may yield different outcomes based on cultural norms.

• _ parenting may have protective effects for certain groups of youth, such as socioeconomically diverse Chinese American immigrant children in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Lee et al., 2014), where it may signal parental care and involvement.

Do these styles hold up in different contexts?

• Adolescent behavior had a much stronger effect on parenting styles than the reverse – bidirectional (Kerr et al., 2012), suggesting that children's behavior influences how parents parent.

• A version of authoritative caregiving is the most common in Chinese and Arab caregivers (Kim et al., 2013; Smetana et al., 2017), though expressions may vary.

Parenting Across Contexts

• “Domain-specific” models describe parenting as multi-faceted and situationally determined (Smetana, 2017), suggesting parents adapt strategies based on the situation.

• Parents are flexible; they use a variety of strategies depending on the context, using different approaches for different scenarios.

Parenting Across Contexts

• “Domains of _” (Grusec and Davidov, 2021):

  • Protection: Ensuring security and protection against harm.

  • Control: Facilitating the acquisition of societal expectations and norms.

  • Guided learning: Supporting the mastery of specific skills and knowledge.

  • Group participation: Promoting a sense of belonging and involvement in a social group.

  • Reciprocity: Teaching the importance of reciprocating others’ behavior in social interactions.

Parental Discipline Practices

• The types of disciplinary practices used are defining features of child-rearing, reflecting parental values and goals.

• The use of particular disciplinary techniques is influenced by many factors, including culture, personal history, and situational demands.

• Discipline is a way to correct children’s (unwanted) behavior, guiding them towards appropriate conduct.

Corporal Punishment and Child Development

• Meta-analysis looked at “associations between spanking/corporal punishment of mothers and their children’s development,” revealing significant outcomes.

• Focus on 0-6 year old children, a critical period for development.

• In 94% of the studies, there were “significant associations between spanking and child outcomes, concurrently or later” (Avezum et al., 2023), indicating potential harm.

Lansford et al. (2005)

• Physical Discipline and Children's Adjustment: A comprehensive study on the effects of physical discipline.

Rationale

• Is physical discipline always associated with maladjustment? The study questions whether negative outcomes are universal.

• Social Learning Theory: Explores how children learn behaviors through observation and imitation.

• Cultural normativeness: The extent to which a behavior is considered acceptable within a culture.

• Potential influencing factors:

  • Individualism vs. collectivism: Cultural orientation affecting perceptions of discipline.

  • Religion: Religious beliefs shaping views on discipline.

  • Legal action: Laws and regulations impacting disciplinary practices.

  • Expectations of frequency of physical discipline: How often physical discipline is expected or practiced.

Method

• 336 mother-child dyads (children 6-17), providing a broad age range for analysis.

• Six cultures: China, India, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, Thailand, representing diverse cultural contexts.

• Middle class, within country, aiming to control for socioeconomic variables within each culture.

• Discipline interviews with mother and child:

  • Included specific acts like spank, slap, grab, shake, beat up.

• Investigated own use of discipline and others’ use of discipline, providing context.

• Child Behavior Checklist/Youth Self Report: Standardized measures for assessing child behavior and emotional adjustment.

Moderating Role of Normativeness

• Figure 1. Hypothesized moderating role of normativeness of discipline strategy: Normativeness may affect children's cognitive and emotional appraisals, influencing whether the discipline strategy is perceived as fair and just or conveying parental rejection.

Normativeness and Physical Discipline

• Children’s Perceived Cultural Normativeness: How children view the acceptability of physical discipline in their culture.

• Mothers’ Perceived Cultural Normativeness: How mothers view the acceptability of physical discipline in their culture.

• Mothers’ use of Physical Discipline: The extent to which mothers use physical discipline.

• Lansford et al. (2005, p. 1235): Reference to the study's findings on these factors.

Interactions and Moderation

• Figure 5. Significant interactions indicating the moderating role of mothers' and children's perceptions of normativeness in the link between mothers' use of physical discipline and children's adjustment. "High" and "low" reflect the use of physical discipline at values +1 and -1 SD from the mean, calculated across the entire sample.

• Lansford et al. (2005, p. 1241): Reference to specific findings related to interactions and moderation.

Conclusion (Lansford et al. 2005)

• Perception of normativeness matters: Cultural context influences the impact of physical discipline.

• Physical discipline was associated with higher levels of anxiety: Regardless of normativeness, physical discipline correlated with increased anxiety.

• Children who perceived the use of physical discipline as being highly _ had higher levels of YSR aggression (p. 1241), suggesting a direct link between perceived normativeness and aggression.

• Caveats:

  • Within-country variability: Variations in cultural norms even within the same country.

  • Age range: Broad age range might obscure developmental differences.

  • Previous levels of adjustment: Prior adjustment levels could influence responses to discipline.

  • Children’s perceptions of the types of discipline used? How children interpret and perceive different disciplinary methods.

More Recently…

• Other studies have shown that cultural normativeness helps to lessen, but not eliminate, the negative effects of authoritarian parenting.

  • E.g., parental shaming was seen as less psychologically harmful by a sample of Chinese youth than a sample of Canadian youth (Helwig et al., 2014), highlighting cultural differences in the perception of shaming.

• Stern et al. (2024) Empathy across three generations: From maternal and peer support in adolescence to adult parenting and child outcomes:

  • Found that maternal warmth led to their adolescents demonstrating more empathy towards their peers and more empathy as parents, and more empathy in their 3-8 year old children.

  • “Pay it forward” model: Empathy is passed on generationally, with warm parenting fostering empathetic traits in subsequent generations.

Peers

When does peer engagement begin?

• Begins in basic form during infancy (Sagi & Hoffman, 1976; Williams et al., 2010):

  • Contagious crying: Matching of negative affect, indicating early emotional connection.

• 2 months: share glances, showing early social awareness.

• 6 months: babble and smile at peers, engaging in reciprocal communication.

Peer engagement developing…

• 18-24 months: mostly ‘negative’ interaction (poking eyes, pulling hair), but a sign of social interest (Brownell, 1990), indicating exploration and social curiosity.

• Preschool: negative interactions drop significantly in favour of positive interactions (Vandell et al., 2006), showcasing development of social skills and cooperation.

Making friends as adults…

• Americans only spend about 41 minutes a day socializing, which is one-third of the amount of time spent watching TV or commuting (US Dept. of Labor, 2015), highlighting the time constraints on adult social interactions.

• Time spent with one person can be conceived as both an _ for developing other relationships and _ toward the relationship’s continuance or development (Hall, 2019), illustrating the dual role of individual friendships in broader social development.

• Close friends occupy a larger portion of communication time compared to casual friends and are more capable of meeting expectations, indicating stronger emotional investment and reliability.

• “Yet, individuals who maintain more and more friendships find their time with every member of the network diminished” (Hall, 2019), highlighting the trade-offs in managing a large social network.

Questions: Set 1

• Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest? This question explores values and idealized connections.

• Would you like to be famous? In what way? Explores aspirations and motivations for recognition.

• Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why? Reveals levels of social anxiety and preparation.

• What would constitute a “perfect” day for you? Reflects personal values and sources of happiness.

• If you could wake up tomorrow having gained one quality or ability, what would it be? Reveals desired personal growth and capabilities.

• What are three things you and your partner appear to have in common? Explores shared values and connection points.

Questions: Set 2

• What is the greatest accomplishment of your life? Reflects personal values and sources of pride.

• What does friendship mean to you? Explores personal definitions and expectations of friendship.

• Is there something you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven't you done it? Reveals aspirations and potential obstacles.

• What do you value most in friendship? Highlights key characteristics and priorities.

Questions: Set 3

• Share with your buddy an embarrassing moment in your life: Promotes vulnerability and connection through shared experiences.

• If your house/apartment/dorm caught on fire, and you had one final dash to save any one item, what would it be and why? Reveals personal values and emotional attachments.

• What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about? Explores boundaries and sensitivities.

• Try to make three true “we” statements with our buddy. For example, “We both feel BLANK about this activity.”: Builds connection through shared feelings and experiences.

What is the purpose of self-disclosure?

• Vulnerable self-disclosure:

  • “The sharing of personal, private information about oneself in order to be known to another person” (Costello et al., 2024), fostering intimacy and trust.

• Recent study indicates adolescents will demonstrate increased in self-disclosure when their best friends demonstrate **_.

• Increased disclosure with friends -> increased vulnerability with romantic partners: Friendships teach the skills necessary for intimate relationships.

• Friendships serve as the foundation for learning appropriate use of vulnerable self-disclosure (Costello et al., 2024), providing a safe space to practice intimacy.

How long does it take to make a friend???

• Casual friendships emerge around , followed by friendships around *_.

• Good friendships begin to emerge after 140 hours, requiring a significant time investment.

• Best friendships do not emerge until after 300 hr of time spent (Hall, 2019), indicating deep connection and commitment.

• “Notably, small talk predicted a reduction in friendship closeness from 6 weeks to 9 weeks. That is, friendships engaging in small talk become less close over time.”, suggesting superficial interaction hinders deeper connection.

• Best friends don’t just spend a lot of time together; the quality of interaction matters.

• “Catching up and joking around predict change in friendship closeness above and beyond the number of hours together.”, highlighting the importance of meaningful and enjoyable interactions.

• Sometimes it's good to waste time … but together <3, as shared experiences build connection.

Laursen et al. (2007)

• Friendship moderates prospective associations between social isolation and adjustment problems in young children, indicating the protective role of friendships.

Defining basic terms

• Social Engagement: General involvement with peers, reflecting overall interaction.

• _: Reflects the number of positive social engagement nominations a child receives; can be considered an index of inclusion, demonstrating social acceptance.

• Social Isolation: Reflects the number of negative social engagement nominations a child receives; can be considered an index of exclusion, demonstrating social rejection.

• _: Frequent companionship, operationally defined in terms of reciprocal positive social engagement nominations, indicating mutual friendship.

Relationships in Childhood

• Social isolation is a _ and a _**_ of adjustment problems (Laursen et al., 2007), underscoring its negative impact.

• Social isolation is linked to childhood adjustment problems AND

• Adjustment problems may lead to higher social isolation, creating a negative cycle.

• Friends _ and __ and social isolation (Gest, 1997), highlighting the protective role of friendship.

Research question

• Do friendships in children buffer adjustment difficulties and social isolation? The study aims to understand this protective effect.

• Moderation -> Do friendships moderate the relationship between social isolation and adjustment? The study examines how friendships change this relationship.

Moderation vs. Mediation Model

• Friendships Current Study (Laursen):

  • Adjustment problems: How friendships affect adjustment difficulties.

  • Friendships (lack thereof): Absence of friendships influences outcomes.

  • Social Isolation: How social isolation affects children.

• Previous Studies:

  • Social Isolation: The impact of social isolation on children.

  • Adjustment problems (i.e., externalizing & internalizing problems): Outcomes such as behavioral and emotional difficulties.

Hypothesis (Laursen et al. 2007)

• Children WITHOUT friends:

  • Predicted links from social isolation leading to internalizing and externalizing problems and vice versa, showing a reciprocal negative relationship.

Children WITHOUT Friends + Internalizing

*What this means:

*“The finding indicates associations between social isolation and internalizing problems and between internalizing problems and social isolation _”

• Grade 1 social isolation predicted Grade 2 internalizing problems.
  * Grade 1 internalizing problems predicted Grade 2 social isolation. Children WITHOUT Friends + Internalizing\

• Increase Participation -> Decrease in Social Isolation Children WITH Friends + Internalizing

Children WITHOUT Friends + Externalizing

*Grade 1 social isolation predicted Grade 2 externalizing problems Grade 1 externalizing problems predicted Grade 2 social isolation “Positive over-time associations emerged for social isolation, social participation, and externalizing problems” Children WITH Friends + Externalizing

Discussion Question (Laursen et al. 2007)

• Given that the findings suggest that friends may be a protective agent for children against social isolation and maladjustment, with the surge of technology and social-based platforms/games, do you think that online friendship would have the same protective effects – why or why not? This question explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of online friendships.

• Today, we have more younger children who use smartphones and social media. How might the increased use of smartphones affect their internalizing and externalizing problems, especially since they are more likely to isolate with its use? This question considers the impact of technology on child development.

Conclusion (Laursen et al. 2007)

• “Friends may protect children against the debilitating cycle of isolation and maladjustment” (pp. 1401), highlighting the significant protective effect.

• **_

• Among children with friends, there were no prospective links (pp. 1401), indicating a buffered effect.

van der Mey-Baijens et al. (2023)

• Perceived Support from Best Friends and Depressive Symptoms during Adolescence: A study focusing on the dyadic relationships and their impact on mental health.

Studying Friends at the Dyadic Level

• Social support, specifically support from friends, is a factor associated with depressive symptoms during adolescence: Friendships play a crucial role in mental health.

• Friendships are dynamic and reciprocal, requiring mutual engagement and support.

• Dyadic Effect: Two individuals (friends) who in addition to their personally experience support by their friend, likely share these experiences to some extent, indicating mutual influence.

• _: “The tendency of adolescents to actively seek out peers with similar beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors” (Becker et al., 2019), reflecting homophily in friendship formation.

• Peer Evocation or “Spill Over” effect: Friends become more alike over time, influencing each other's behaviors and attitudes.

• : A maladaptive communication style between friends; i.e., “rehashing the problem and excessively focus on their negative feelings and emotions instead of possible solutions.”

Research Question (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• Are there differences in support at the _ on depressive symptoms? The study questions whether individual or group support has more impact.

• Does initial levels of depressive symptoms the relationship between support and depressive symptoms? The study explores whether pre-existing conditions alter outcomes.

The Four Hypotheses (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• Hypothesis #1: “There will be a main effect where best friend support is associated with the development of depressive symptoms, which may act on the individual, dyadic, or both levels.”

• Hypothesis #2: Individual (Within Group)

  • Initial Levels of Depression: The starting point for depressive symptoms.

  • Individual perceived support: How individuals perceive the support they receive.

  • Individual depressive symptoms: The resulting depressive symptoms.

The Four Hypotheses (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• Hypothesis #3: Dyad as a whole (Between Group)

  • Initial Levels of Depression EXPERIENCED BY THE DYAD: The combined initial depression within the friendship.

  • Perceived support: The shared feeling of support within the dyad.

  • Depressive symptoms: The resulting depression within the friendship.

• Hypothesis #4: Individual + Dyad = Cross-Level

  • Initial Levels of Depression: The starting point for depressive symptoms.

  • Individual Perceived support: How individuals perceive the support they receive.

  • Individual Depressive symptoms: The resulting individual depressive symptoms.

Results (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• “Results showed a significant between-dyads moderation effect of initial depressive symptoms in the association of best friend support and depressive symptoms” (pp. 475), highlighting the interplay between support and pre-existing conditions.

Discussion Question (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• Do you think that the friendships with more depressive symptoms and high levels of support are aware that both of them are making the other friend feel worse? Do they think they have a healthy relationship? It's good that they've found each other and someone who understands the way they feel, but I think it may be best for them to take a break and revisit the friendship after seeking help. This question delves into the awareness and health dynamics of friendships.

• Do you think some people know that their friends are making their symptoms worse, but they won't admit it because they may not have anyone else that would support them? Exploring the choice between harmful support and loneliness.

Conclusion (van der Mey-Baijens et al. 2023)

• It is important to understand _ when understanding the importance of friendships as it related to well-being, indicating the complexity of relationships.

• Importance of moderation -> initial depressive symptoms influence the association between best friend support and depressive symptoms, underlining the pre-existing conditions.

Takeaways

• Peers and parents are important aspects of an individual’s development, with each contributing unique influence.

• The influence of peers/parents ebbs and flows over time but is present in some form, indicating ongoing impact.

• Complete the anonymous feedback form.

Before next time…

• Reminders…

• Reflection for Week #14 due Sunday.

• DQs for Week #15 due Monday (1 article = 1 DQ).

• Grad Students: Research Proposals are due TONIGHT.

• Extra credit due 05/05.