PSYC 4220H UNIT 5

Chapter 11.2. The Self.

11.2. THE SELF. · 3 main aspects of the self: self-concept, self-esteem, and identity · Self-concept: how individuals view themselves · Self-esteem: how individuals evaluate and feel about themselves · Self-concept and self-esteem are internal to the individual · Identity involves descriptions or categories that are often externally imposed, like through membership or participation in a family, religion, race/ethnic group, or school · A baby does not have a conscious self-concept, but does have an identity because the baby has a name and part in family · Kids and adolescents can and do have multiple identities based on various facets of their lives · SELF CONCEPT: system made up of one's thoughts and attitudes about oneself · Can include thoughts about one's own physical being (ex. body, possessions), social characteristics (ex. relationships, personality, social roles) and internal characteristics (thoughts, psychological functioning) · It is also an understanding of how the self changes or remains same over time, as beliefs about one's own role in shaping those processes, and of reflections on one's own consciousness of selfhood · The way individuals view themselves influences their overall feelings of well-being and self-confidence when faced with external criticism · Develops primarily through interactions w/ people · Self-concept starts as an appreciation of one's physical self · Piaget and Vygotsky argue that kids learn by interacting w/ their env, and affecting it. · By 2-4 months, infants have a sense of their ability to control objects outside themselves · About 8 months, infants' self-concept becomes more distinct. Infants react w/ separation distress if kept apart from a parent, suggesting they recognize that they and their mothers are separate entities. · So, development of self-concept is the first step in development of attachment to a caregiver · Around 1st birthday, show joint attention w/ respect to objects in env · By 15 months, able to distinguish themselves by gender and age · Around 18-20 months, many kids can look into a mirror and recognize themselves · Mirror self-recognition test/ "rouge test" - experimenter puts a dot of rouge on child's face, puts him in front of mirror, observes his reaction · Kids younger than 18 months usually try to touch the image in the mirror or do nothing. Do not recognize image as themselves. · Most kids between 18-24 months will touch rouge on their face, showing they recognize themselves · Kids with ASD have difficulties here · In developing countries, even kids much older than 2 years of age often fail to recognize themselves in a mirror, using this test. But it may be because in interdependent (vs. independent) cultures, kids ignore the mark because they assume the experimenter put it there on purpose. · Cultural contexts can influence how children think about themselves and the env · 18 month olds showed more brain activity when shown their own face than when they were shown faces of familiar or unfamiliar kids and adults · 2 year olds exhibit embarrassment and shame, emotions that require a self-concept · During 3rd year, kids start to store memories of their own experiences and behaviors, use them to construct narratives of their own "life story" · Strength of awareness of self leads to notorious self-assertion: "terrible twos" · Sense of self can be influenced directly or indirectly · Ex. Direct - teacher tells child she is doing well, child will internalize that she is a person who is good at math. · Ex. Indirect - comes from how kids are treated by others. A child who is nurtured, loved, and supported develops internal working model of herself as lovable, worthy. · At age 3-4, kids understand themselves in terms of concrete, observable characteristics related to physical attributes, physical activities and abilities, and psychological traits · Young kids also describe themselves in terms of their preferences and possessions · Their self-appraisals are unrealistically confident; reflects cognitive limitations · Kids begin to refine their conceptions of self in elementary school, in part because they increasingly engage in SOCIAL COMPARISON, comparing themselves with others in terms of characteristics, behaviors, and possessions · By middle-late elementary school, kids' conceptions of self become integrated and more broadly encompassing · Reflects cognitive advancements in their ability to use higher order concepts that integrate more specific behavioral features of the self · Older kids can coordinate opposing self-representations ("smart and dumb"), which at a younger age they would have considered mutually exclusive · Allows older kids to construct more global views of themselves and evaluate themselves as a person overall · Result in a more balanced and realistic assessment of self, but can result in feelings of inferiority and helplessness. · Self-concepts are increasingly based on others' evaluations of them, especially those of their peers · So, self-descriptions often contain a pronounced social element · So, kids at this age are vulnerable to low self-esteem if others view them negatively · Self-concept changes in fundamental ways across adolescence, due in part to emergence of abstract thinking during this stage of life · Allows them to think of themselves in terms of abstract characteristics encompassing a variety of concrete traits and behaviors · Adolescents typically develop multiple selves · Concern over their social competence and their social acceptance by peers intensifies in early adolescence · Thinking about self in early adolescence is characterized by a form of egocentrism called the PERSONAL FABLE, in which adolescents overly differentiate their feelings from those of others and come to regard themselves, and especially their feelings, as unique and special · "You don't know how it feels, no one understands me" · Still evident in late adolescence too · IMAGINARY AUDIENCE - belief, stemming from adolescent egocentrism, that everyone else is focused on the adolescent's appearance and behavior · This dimension of egocentrism, like the personal fable, has been found to become stronger across adolescence for boys but not girls! · In middle teens, begin to agonize over contradictions in behavior and characteristics. Ask: "Who am I?" · Most still do not have the cognitive skills needed to integrate their recognition of these contradictions into a coherent self-concept · Late adolescence and early adulthood, conception of self becomes more integrated, less determined by what others think. · Older adolescents' conceptions of self frequently reflect internalized personal values, beliefs, standards · Instilled by others but are now accepted and generated by adolescents as their own · Place less emphasis on what others think than they did at younger ages, more concerned w/ meeting their own standards and with their future self · They may explain their contradictory characteristic in terms of need to be flexible, and may view variations in their behavior w/ diff people as "adaptive" · May integrate changes in emotion under the characteristic "moody" · Likely to view their inconsistencies as a normal part of being human · Support and tutelage of others (like teachers, parents) helps older adolescents to internalize values, beliefs, and standards that they feel committed to and feel comfortable w/ who they are SELF-ESTEEM · SELF-ESTEEM - incorporates a child's overall subjective evaluation of his or her worth and the feelings he or she has about that evaluation · Self-esteem does not emerge until kids reach age 8 or so!!! · Researchers ask kids, verbally or by questionnaire, about their perceptions of things like their physical attractiveness, athletic competence, social acceptance, scholastic ability, and appropriateness of their behavior. Ask about their global self-worth (how they feel about themselves in general) · Low self-esteem in childhood and adolescence is associated with problems like anxiety, depression, and bullying, both as perpetrator and victim · High self-esteem, especially if not based on positive self-attributes, may have costs for kids and adolescents · Ex. High self-esteem in aggressive kids is associated with their increasingly valuing the rewards they derive from their aggression and their belittlement of victims · Combo of high self-esteem and narcissism - grandiose views of the self, inflated feelings of superiority and entitlement, and explosive interpersonal attitudes - has been associated with especially high levels of aggression in young adolescents · Several sources of individual differences in self esteem · One is age: self-esteem is not constant and varies by developmental stage. · Self-esteem tends to be high in childhood before declining in adolescence and then rebounding in adulthood · Physical attributes like attractiveness are also linked with self-esteem · In childhood and adolescence, attractive individuals are much more likely to report high self-esteem than are those who are less attractive · Boys tend to have higher overall self-esteem than girls, and this tendency persists across life span · Females may have higher self-esteem than males in certain domains · Meta-analysis found that males have higher self-esteem than females in the domains of athletics, personal appearance, and self-satisfaction · Females higher in domains of behavioral conduct (perceiving themselves as well-behaved) and moral-ethical self-esteem · No gender differences in self-esteem related to academic performance, suggesting that although girls may have lower self-esteem in some domains, this does not prevent them from seeing themselves as able to do well in school · Perhaps most important influence on kids' self-esteem is approval and support they receive from others, particularly their parents · Early theories viewed self-esteem as the internalization of the views of ourselves held by important people in our lives · Cooley said Reflection of what others think of us, or our "looking glass self" · Similar ideas proposed by Erikson and Bowlby, who argued that kids' self-esteem is grounded in the quality of their relationships with their parents · If kids feel loved when young, they come to believe they are lovable and worthy of others' love; if they feel unloved when young, they come to believe the opposite · Securely attached kids w/ sensitive/responsive parents have high self-esteem · When parents belittle/reject the kid (condemn him rather than the behavior), instill a sense of worthlessness · Parents can undermine kids' self-esteem by constantly relying on social comparison as a means of motivating kids (ex. "Why can't you be helpful like your sister?") · Can also give kids unrealistically high self-esteem by praising too often · Over course of childhood, kids' self-esteem is increasingly affected by peer acceptance · In late childhood, kids' feelings of competence about their appearance, athletic ability, and likability may be affected more by their peers' evaluations than by their parents' · Tendency to evaluate self on basis of peers' perceptions is associated w/ preoccupation w/ approval, fluctuations in self-esteem, lower levels of peer approval, and lower self-esteem · Youths who see themselves as competent in their peer relationships tend to be well liked, perhaps because their behavior is confident and socially engaging · Effect of school env is most apparent in decline in self-esteem associated w/ transition from elementary school to middle school · Middle school env often not a good developmental match for 11 and 12 year olds because many kids are distressed from switch from one teacher to many teachers · Also a more competitive env · But, support from teachers does promote higher self-esteem in adolescents · Living in impoverished violent neighborhoods associated w. lower self-esteem among adolescents in US · May be due to stress that undermines quality of parenting, prejudice from more affluent peers, and inadequate material and psychological resources · In various cultures, the sources, form, and function of self-esteem may be different, and criteria that kids use may vary · In western culture, self-esteem related to individual accomplishments and self-promotion · Asian societies (collectivist), self-esteem related to contributing to welfare of the larger group and affirming the norms of social interdependence · In this cultural context, self-criticism and efforts at self-improvement may be viewed as evidence of commitment to the group · But in terms of measures of self-esteem in US, motivation toward self-criticism is reflected as lower self-evaluation; in fact, in western industrialized cultures, where an autonomous, relatively stable self is valued, adolescents who base their self-evaluations on others' standards and approval are at risk for psychological problems · So, not surprising that scores on measures of self-esteem vary considerably across cultures · Self-esteem scores tend to be lower in China, Japan, and Korea than US, Canada, Australia, and some of Europe · European American and African American adolescents tend to be more comfortable w/ being praised and w/ events that make them look good and cause them to stand out than are Asian American and Latino adolescents · In some Asian societies, people tend to be more comfortable acknowledging discrepancies in themselves - ex. existence of both good and bad personal characteristics - than are people in western cultures; tendency results in reports of lower self-esteem in late adolescence and early adulthood! · Same type of cultural influences may affect measures of self-esteem in US subcultures that have maintained traditional non-western ideas about self · Studies have shown that culture does not appear to be a factor in gender differences related to self-esteem! · In meta-analysis of many countries, males have higher self-esteem than females, and while self-esteem increases age 16 on for both genders, females' self-esteem on avg never reaches that of males · Reasons for gender difference is not clear, but it may derive from gender roles and stereotypes · Gender differences in self-esteem were largest in countries that were wealthy, individualistic, and egalitarian, where women officially have the same freedoms as men IDENTITY · IDENTITY - definition of the self · Each of us has multiple identities that are more salient (noticeale and important) than others at certain times · Adolescence - period at which kids appreciate their multiple identities and begin to forge new identities that may be distinct from those of their family and childhood friends · Earliest theory of identity formation - ERIK ERIKSON - argued all adolescents experience an identity crisis, in part as a means of separating from their parents. · Successful resolution of this crisis results in IDENTITY ACHIEVEMENT - integration of various aspects of self into coherent whole that is stable over time and across events · After this, researchers rejected the idea that all individuals must go through an identity crisis · James Marcia developed alternate way of describing adolescents' identity development by considering where an individual falls on dimensions of identity exploration and identity commitment · On basis of an adolescent's responses in a structured interview, that individual is classified into 1 of 4 categories of identity status: IDENTITY ACHIEVEMENT, MORATORIUM, IDENTIY FORECLSURE, AND IDENTITY DIFFUSION · EXPLORATION, COMMITMENT: IDENTITY ACHIVEMENT: individual has explored potential identities and has committed to one. Represents ideal endpoint of identity development for adolescents and young adults. · NO EXPLORATION, COMMITMENT: IDENTITY FORECLOSURE: individual has not explored potential identities and has chosen an identity based on the choices or values of others. · EXPLORATION, NO COMMITMENT: MORATORIUM: Individual is exploring various identities and has not yet made a clear commitment to any. Some may explore potential identities with BREADTH, trying out a variety of candidate identities. Others may make an initial commitment and explore it in DEPTH, through continuous monitoring of current commitments to make them more conscious. (ex. try out diff types of art before committing to being an artist). · NO EXPLORATION, NO COMMITMENT: IDENTITY DIFFUSION: individual is not making progress toward exploring or committing to an identity. · In course of adolescence and early adulthood, individuals generally progress slowly toward identity achievement · Most typical sequences of change appear to be from DIFFUSION TO MORATORIUM TO FORECLOSURE TO ACHIEVEMENT · OR from DIFFUSION TO FORECLOSURE TO ACHIEVEMENT · Little evidence that many adolescents have the sustained identity confusion Erikson said could lead to severe psychological disturbances · At least in modern western societies, identity status of adolescents and young adults is related to their adjustment, social behavior, and personality, w/ identity achievement being closely associated w/ mental health and positive social outcomes · Those who have made a commitment (through foreclosure or achievement) tend to be low in depression and anxiety, high in extraversion and agreeableness · Young adults who explore possible commitments more in depth than in breadth tend to be extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious, whereas those who explore more in breadth tend to be prone to negative emotionality but open to experience · Adolescents who experience warmth and support from parents have more mature identity, less identity confusion · Youths subject to parental psychological control tend to explore in breadth and are lower in making commitment to an identity · Identity formation also influenced by larger social context and historical context · Ex. today (unlike earlier in history), many women in many cultures more likely to base their identity on both the family and career ETHNIC AND RACIAL IDENTITY · Ethnic and racial identity especially salient (noticeable, important) in adolescence · ETHNIC AND RACIAL IDENTITY encompasses the beliefs and attitudes an individual has about ethnic or racial groups to which they belong · Race refers to physical characteristics, most commonly skin color · Ethnicity refers to relationships and experiences linked to cultural and ethnic ancestroy, religion, native language · Race is a social construct - there is no genetic basis for there being separate "races" · Preschool kids don't understand significance of being a member of an ethnic group · By early school years, kids know common characteristics of their ethnic or racial group, start to have feelings about it · Kids tend to identify themselves according to ethnic/racial group between 5-8 · In study of 9 year olds, each group viewed gender as a more essential part of their identities than race · By late elementary school, minority kids often have very positive view of their ethnic or racial group · Family and larger social env play major role in development of ethnic and racial identity · Issue of ethnic/racial identity often becomes more central in adolescence · ACCULTURATION - a process of adjusting to a new culture while retaining some aspects of one's culture of origin. · Kids and parents can acculturate at diff rates to new culture, sometimes resulting in acculturation gaps between them, can be a source of conflict · Ex. In a study of Latino youth born in US to foreign-born parents, parent-youth acculturation gaps related to increased parent-youth conflict, which negatively affected academic performance among the youth. Mostly occurs when relationship was low in trust and communication. · Research shows high levels of ethnic and racial identity associated w/ high self-esteem, well-being, and low emotional/behavioral problems · Adolescents w/ pos ethnic/racial identity are buffered from negative effects of discrimination · Benefits of high ethnic/racial identification for adolescents' academic, physical health, and mental health outcomes hold more consistently for African American youth than for Latino youth, Asian American youth, and Native American youth · Research insufficient to draw conclusions for Asian American and Pacific Islander youth · Establishing a clear ethnic identification may be more difficult and less consistent for some adolescents, such as multi-ethnic or multi-racial youth, who could develop identifications with more than one ethnic or racial group · However, when ethnic or racial minority parents actively socialize their kids by teaching them about their culture and instilling pride, kids tend to have a more positive ethnic and racial identity and are less susceptible to the negative effects of discrimination · In some cases, ethnic and racial minority youth develop a bicultural identity that includes a comfortable identification with both the majority culture and their own ethnic culture · For some minority youths, can provide certain benefits, such as positive perceptions of opportunities in the majority society · But, bicultural identity can be associated w/ lower levels of some strengths that are part of successful identity development, such as certain traditional values, as well as fidenlity (loyalty and commitment) and wisdom · Research indicates that white parents often do not discuss race w/ their parents or do not think they have a "race" and that some white parent actively teach their kids to be "colorblind" · Ethnic/racial identities also linked w/ adolescents' self-esteem · Despite fact that African American kids and adolescents experience discrimination and stereotyping, they have higher self-esteem on avg than their white American peers · May be because ethnic/racial identity is an important aspect of self-concept for many African Americans, and emphasis by parents on positive features of being African American may enhance their self-esteem · Athough discrimination can have a negative effect on adolescents' self-esteem, how ethnic minority children and adolescents think about themselves is influenced more strongly by acceptance from their family, neighbors, and friends than by reactions from strangers and the society at large · Thus, minority-group parents can help their kids develop high self-esteem and sense of well-being by instilling them w/ pride in their culture SEXUAL IDENTITY · In childhood and especially adolescence, an individual's identity includes his or her SEXUAL IDENTITY, one's sense of oneself as a sexual being · Includes SEXUAL ORIENTATION - romantic or erotic attractions to people of the opposite gender, same gender, both, or neither. · Sexual identity is thus separate from gender identity, which is an individual's awareness of himself or herself as male, female, transgendered · Studies indicate that a person's sexual orientation is at least partly hereditary; identical twins, for example, are more likely to exhibit similar sexual orientations than are fraternal twins · Majority of adolescents, like the majority of adults, are heterosexual · 88.8% of high school students reported heterosexual identity. 6.0% bisexual. 2.0% gay or lesbian. 3.2% not sure. · Minority status of non-heterosexual youth has led to concern about well being of SEXUAL MINORITY YOUTH, adolescents attracted to people from their same biological sex or from both sexes. · Transgender and questioning individuals are more accurately described as gender-minority youth · Sexual-minority: LGB youth · Through childhood and adolescence, sexual-minority youth often feel "different," and some even display cross-gender behaviors from a relatively early age · Process begins with FIRST RECOGNITION - initial realization that one is somewhat different from others, accompanied by feelings of alienation from oneself and others · In one study, on average, didn't identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual until after 15, and disclosure of their sexual orientation did not occur until after age 20, though there was considerable variation by age cohort: young adults (18 to 29) reported disclosing their sexual orientation before age 20, whereas adults age 45 to 59 did not disclose until age 25 · This likely reflects the growing acceptance of homosexual and bisexual identities in US · Especially for females, there is considerable instability in adolescents' and young adults' reports of same-sex attraction or sexual behavior · By college age, notable number of young woman identify themselves as "mostly straight." Mostly heterosexual but somewhat attracted to females · One longitudinal study that followed lesbian, bisexual, and unlabeled (those w/ some same-sex involvement who were unwilling to attach a label to their sexuality) women 18-25 found that, over 10 year period, 2/3 changed the identity labels they had claimed at beginning of study and 1/3 changed labels 2 or more times. · Overall, females more likely to describe themselves as bisexual or "mostly heterosexual" than are males · Male youths who have engaged in same-sex sexual experiences show an increasing preference for males from adolescence to early adulthood · When they do come out, minority youths (sexual minorities - gay, lesbian, bi) usually disclose to a best friend (typically a sexual-minority friend), to a peer to whom the are attached, or a sibling, and do not tell parents until a year later, if at all · If they reveal to parents, they usually tell mother first, often because mother asked · Not unusual for parents to initially respond w/ anger, disappointment, and denial · Likely as a result of such reactions, sexual minority youths have higher reported rates of attempted suicide than do heterosexual peers · Victimization and harassment by peers and others is common · Sexual minority youths more likely to be injured, to be victim of dating violence or sexual assault · ¾ of sexual minority youth report having been verbally threatened because of their sexual orientation · Fear of being harassed or rejected outside the home is one reason many sexual-minority youth hide sexual orientation from heterosexual peers · May also explain why sexual minority youth more likely to engage in truancy (action of staying away from school without good reason) · In a survey, top 3 most important life problems listed by sexual-minority youth were non-accepting families, bullying at school, and fear of being open about their sexual identity · Top 3 problems listed by heterosexual youth were grades, college, and financial pressures · A recent survey found only 27% of LGBTQ youth feel they can be themselves as an LGBTQ person in school. In addition, only 19 states have enacted anti-bullying laws that protect LGBTQ students · Daily struggles lead them to be twice as likely as heterosexual youth to ay they will need to move to another town to feel accepted · They are prone to experience negative affect, depression, low self-esteem, low feelings of control in romantic relationships · Report higher levels of tobacco, alcohol, drug use than do other youth · More likely to be homeless or in foster care, frequently because they have run away from or kicked out of home · High rates of suicide among sexual and gender minority youth led to creation of the It Gets Better Project · 73% of sexual minority youth say they are more honest about themselves online, compared w/ 43% of heterosexual youth · Sexual minority youth who are also of minority race or ethnic status are special source of concern. · But, A study of over 1000 sexual and gender minority young women found that LGBTQ women found no differences in ranges of mental health problems (depression, anxiety) and health-related behaviors (ex. smoking) across diff cultures · Despite heightened risks, important to emphasize that in most ways, sexual minority kids and adolescents are developmentally indisguishable from their heterosexual peers · Deal w/ many of same family and identity issues · ¾ of youth now say they hear positive messages about sexual minority identities online, at school, by elected leaders, but most of these positive messages are found on internet; in school, such messages are rare, w/ only 13% of sexual minority youth reporting they hear pos messages

Chapter 13. Peer Relationships.

CHAPTER 13: PEER RELATIONSHIPS · PEERS: people of approximately the same age and who are unrelated to one another 13.1. PLAY · PLAY refers to activities kids pursue for their inherent enjoyment · If kids are rewarded for their behaviors or are indifferent about the activity, it is not play · Majority of kids' play from age 4 onward is social · Social-emotional development may be the domain most affected by play; kids learn to cooperate, take turns, and try out social roles · Because play is inherently enjoyable, kids will experience happiness through play · Also provides chance to practice empathy and concern for others · Fosters cognitive development w/ problem solving, strengthening memory, expressing creativity · Can encourage language development and motor skills · Also promotes emotion regulation and positive emotions · Child-centered play therapy (CCPT) encourages kids to express thoughts and emotions through play. Reduces externalizing symptoms (like aggression) and internalizing symptoms (such as anxiety) and improves social skills · Kids in orphanages often deprived of toys and opportunity to play · Interventions can reverse harm that results from lack of play 13.2. FRIENDSHIPS. · FRIEND is a peer with whom an individual has an intimate, reciprocated, and positive relationship · Kids tend to be friends w/ peers who are friendly and act prosocially toward others · Another key determinant of friendship is similarity of interests and behavior · Kids tend to like peers who are similar to themselves in the cognitive maturity of their play and in their levels of cooperativeness, antisocial behavior, acceptance by peers, ad shyness · Friends in childhood and adolescence are also more similar than nonfriends in their academic motivation and self-perceptions of competence · Share similar levels of negative emotions like distress and depression and are similar in tendencies to attribute hostile intentions to others · For young kids, proximity is an obvious key factor - tend to become friends w/ peers who are physically near · Young kids' access to peers can vary by culture · Although proximity becomes less important w/ age, it continues to play a role in individuals' choices of friends into adolescence, in part because of involvement in similar activities at school (ex. sports, academic activities, arts) · When 2 adolescents participated in same activity, 2.3 times more likely to be friends · Vast majority of adolescents report that school is most common setting where they spend time w/ their close friends · Nearly half of teens surveyed regularly spend time w/ friends while doing extracurricular activities or in their neighborhoods, and 1/5 spend time w/ friends who attended the same religious institution · Physical proximity no longer necessary for kids who have regular access to the Internet · 55% of adolescents regularly spend time w/ friends online, through social media or gaming sites · In most industrialized countries, similarity in age is also a major factor in friendship, w/ most kids tending to make friends w/ age-mates · In part, may be due to fact that in most industrialized societies, kids are segregated by age in school · Another powerful factor is gender: girls tend to be friends w/ girls, boys w/ boys · Cross-gender friendships, though not uncommon, tend to be more fragile · Preference for same-gender friends emerges in preschool and continues through childhood, while liking of other-gender peers increases over course of childhood and into early adolescence · Time in groups w/ only same sex peers peaks around 13 years, whereas time in groups that include opposite sex peers increases steadily from age 10 onward, although this increase is much steeper for girls than for boys · Girls (time in groups that include boys) increase is steeper! · To a lesser degree, kids tend to be friends w/ peers of their own racial/ethnic group, but this tendency varies across groups and contexts · Efforts to establish friendships outside one's own racial/ethnic group are less likely to be reciprocated than are efforts within the group · When they are reciprocated, often not as long lasting · Youths who maintain cross-racial friendships tend to be leaders and inclusive, and socially competent and high self-esteem · In a study, for majority-group kids, having cross-ethnic friendships is associated with positive attitudes toward people in other groups in future · But, cross-race friendships can have costs · Ex. Middle-school African American and Asian American youths whose best friends are all of a diff race from their own tend to be lower in emotional well being than those w/ best friends only from same racial group · Perhaps because their friends of diff races are not subject to same forms of racial discrimination, and can't provide support when they are faced w/ it · Hard to tell whether friends actually affect one another's behavior or whether kids simply seek out peers who think, act, and feel as they do DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES IN FRIENDSHIP · Kids have friends as early as 2nd year of life · Kids as young as 12 to 18 months display preference for some kids over others by touching preferred kids, smiling at them, engaging in pos interactions · By 24 months, kids have begun to develop skills that allow greater complexity in social interactions, including imitating peers' social behaviors, engaging in cooperative problem solving, and trading roles during play · By age 3 or 4, kids can make and maintain friendships with peers and most have at least one friendship · Even in these early years, kids can identify their "best friends" and characterize their relationships with best friends as more positive than their relationships with other friends · During preschool, kids begin to prefer playing w/ same-gender peers and this preference continues through middle childhood · From about 5 years on, kids who are friends communicate more often w/ one another and cooperate and work together more effectively than do nonfriends · Friends also fight w/ each other more often, but are more likely to negotiate their way out of the conflict than are nonfriends · Between age 6-8, kids define friendship primarily on basis of actual activities w/ their peers and tend to define "best" friends as peers w/ whom they play all the time and share everything · Studies have shown that throughout middle childhood, kids increasingly define their friendships in terms of characteristics like companionship, similarity in attitudes/interests, acceptance, trust, genuineness, mutual admiration, and loyalty · At about 9 years, kids become more sensitive to needs of others and to inequalities in the ways some groups of people are treated compared to other groups · For kids at this age, friends are those peers who take care of one another's physical and material needs, provide general assistance and help w/ schoolwork, reduce loneliness, and share feelings · During adolescence, friendships become increasingly imp source of intimacy and self-disclosure, and source of honest feedback · Also become more exclusive in adolescence, as they begin to focus on having just a few close friends · Changes may explain why adolescents perceive quality of friendships as improving from middle to late adolescence and why they value them so highly · But, friendships in adolescence can also be less stable than they were in middle childhood; whereas 75% of friendships at age 10 persist for entire school year, only half endure in adolescence!!! · Selman suggested that changes in kids' reasoning about friendships are a consequence of age-related qualitative changes in their ability to take others' perspectives · In view of Selman, as well as Piaget and others, young kids have limited awareness that others may feel or think differently · So, their thinking of friendships is limited to degree to which they consider issues beyond their own needs · Selman's descriptions of friendship development have been confirmed in research w/ kids in North America and Europe · Social technology (ex. social media) play increasing role in interactions of kids and especially adolescents · In large survey of 12-17 year olds, majority said texting is one of 3 most common ways to contact · Gender difference regarding which modes of communication are most often used; girls prefer texts, phone calls, social media. Boys are more than 12 times more likely to use gaming sites. · Electronic communication: · Greater anonymity - kids reduce their social inhibitions, which (for shy kids) can help them interact w/ others online. But, kids get carried away w/ this disinhibition. · Less emphasis on physical appearance when conversation conducted through typing, audio. · More control over interactions · Finding similar peers - increasing their sense of belongingness and well-being. · 24/7 access means kids and youth can connect throughout the day. Can interfere w/ school and sleep. · Fun to connect online · Longitudinal study found the more kids used instant messaging, the more comfortable they were introducing themselves to new people and suggesting to new friends that they hang out sometime · 2 major perspectives have guided research on the issues of technology · One view: RICH-GET RICHER HYPOTHESIS: those youths who already have good social skills benefit from internet and related forms of technology when it comes to developing friendships. A study of Palestinian youth found individuals w/ a lot of friends offline tended to have large online social networks. By contrast, youth who are shy or withdrawn tend to inappropriately vent anger online, which impairs further interactions with peers. · Competing hypothesis: SOCIAL-COMPENSATION HYPOTHESIS - argues social media may be especially beneficial for lonely, depressed, and socially anxious adolescents. Specifically, because they can take their time thinking about and revising what they say and reveal in their messages, these youths may be more likely to make personal disclosures online than offline, which eventually fosters the formation of new friendships. Lonely and anxious youths prefer online communication to face-to-face. Youths w/ depressive symptoms use online communication to make friends and express feelings, and is associated w/ less depression for youths w/ low-quality best-friend relationships. · Internet-based communication technologies appear to facilitate communication among existing friends, allowing them to maintain and enhance the closeness of their relationships · In existing friendships, online communication fosters self-disclosure, which enhances friendship quality · In fact, many adolescents tend to use social-networking sites to connect w/ people they know offline and strengthen these preexisting relationships · Similarly, use of instant messaging has been associated w/ increase in quality of adolescents' existing friendships over time · In contrast, high levels of internet use primarily for entertainment or for communication w/ strangers can harm quality of friendships, and predicts increases in anxiety and depression EFFECTS OF FRIENDSHIPS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING AND BEHAVIOR SUPPORT AND VALIDATION · As Piaget, Vygotsky, and others noted, most important benefits of friendship are emotional support and validation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and worth, as well as opportunities for development of imp social and cognitive skills · Kids who experience chronic friendlessness more likely than kids with friends to develop symptoms of depression and social withdrawal · Support of friends important during transition periods · Young kids have more positive initial attitudes toward school if they begin school w/ a large number of established friends as classmates, likely because presence of established friends in early weeks of school reduces strangeness of new env · As kids move into middle school, more likely to increase levels of sociability and leadership if they have high quality intimate friendships · Friendships may also serve as buffer against unpleasant experiences, like being yelled at by teacher, being excluded or victimized by peers, or being socially isolated (having low levels of involvement w/ peers more generally) · Especially true if friends provide intimacy, security, and help when needed · In one study, 10 and 11 year olds reported on negative experiences over 4 day period, indicating shortly after each bad experience how they felt about themselves and whether a best friend had been present. Cortisol levels were recorded at multiple times. Study showed when a best friend was not present, more negative the experiences were, w/ higher cortisol level and greater decline in sense of self-worth following the experience. · When friend was present, less change in cortisol response, and in self worth due to neg experiences · Degree to which friends provide caring and support increases from childhood to adolescence · Around age 16, adolescents, especially girls, report that friends are more important confidants and providers of support than parents are · Support from parents stays same childhood to adolescence. Support from teachers drops. Support from nonfriend classmates increases slightly. DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE SKILLS · Friendships provide a context for development of social skills and knowledge that kids need to form positive relationships w/ other people · Throughout childhood, positive behaviors like cooperation and negotiation are more common among friends than among nonfriends · Young kids who discuss emotions w/ friends develop a better understanding of others' mental and emotional states than do kids whose peer relationships are less close · Kids can use these skills when helping their friends · Friendship provides other avenues to social and cognitive development too · Through gossip w/ friends about other kids, kids learn about peer norms, including how, why, when display or control expression of emotions and other behaviors · As Piaget pointed out, friends more likely than nonfriends to criticize and expand on one another's ideas and elaborate and clarify their own ideas · This openness promotes cognitive skills and enhances performance on creative tasks · In a longitudinal study, kids who had best friends were viewed by classmates as more mature and competent, less aggressive, more socially prominent. 13 years later, individuals who had best friends at age 10 reported greater success in college and in their family and social lives than individuals who did not have best friend at age 10. Also reported higher self-esteem, fewer legeal problems, less psychopathology (ex. depression). · So, best friend in preadolescence relates not only to pos social outcomes in middle childhood but also adjustment and competence in adulthood!!! · BUT, peers can encourage neg behaviors, like aggression or alcohol or substance use · Peers can also be source of bullying · In elementary school years and early adolescence, kids who have antisocial and aggressive friends tend to exhbit antisocial, delinquent, and aggressive tendencies themselves · But, this research is correlational, so we don't know if kids pick friends who are like them, or if kids become more like their friends over time · Through talk and behavior, youths who are antisocial may both model and reinforce aggression and deviance in one another by making these behaviors seem acceptable, a process known as DEVIANCY TRAINING. Begins as early as age 5 and predicts antisocial and delinquent behaviors into adolescence. · Adolescents tend to choose friends similar to them in terms of drinking and drug use · Evidence that adolescents' use of alcohol and their friends' alcohol and substance use mutually reinforce each other, often resulting in escalation of use · Yet another factor is genetic makeup. Youths w/ similar genetically based temperamental characteristics like risk-taking may be drawn both to one another and to alcohol/drugs. · But, effect of a group of friends on youths' drinking is not due solely to genetics · Extent to which friends' use of drugs and alcohol may put individual at risk for use themselves seems to depend, in part, on nature of child-parent relationship · At risk primarily if adolescent's parents are uninvolved - low in warmth and low in control and monitoring · If parents are authoritative (high in control and high in warmth), adolescents more likely to be protected against peer pressure to use drugs · If adolescents' parents are more authoritarian (high in control, low in warmth), those adolescents are more susceptible to peers' drug use and thus to using drugs · Bullying is relatively common experience · In a survey of kids 12-18, 20% reported they had been bullied at school in previous year · Results from a power imbalance, such that bully is perceived by victim to have power over them · Main sources of power noted by the students was that bully could influence what other students thought of them, were more popular, were physically stronger, had more money · Girls more likely than boys to be bullied, and rates of bullying peak in middle school and decrease steadily to end of high school · Bullies are themselves peers! · 13% of adolescents admitted to bullying others in previous year · Bullying happens throughout school grounds and virtually · Kids who are bullies tend to be callous and antisocial, susceptible to peer pressure, and higher in social status, and tend to have harsh and insensitive parents · Victims, on the other hand, likely to be rejected by peers, feel depressed, and do poorly in school, although some are aggressive as well · Hereditary factors associated w/ aggression appear to predict peer victimization, suggesting that temperamental or other personal characteristics may increase likelihood of kids becoming both aggressive and victimized · Ex. Low self-regulation is related to both aggression and peer victimization · These same characteristics that elicit bullying may also be the result of bullying, and research suggests there is bidirectional relationship between aggression and victimization · A small proportion of kids (20% or less) are both perpetrators and victims of bullying and thus tend to be more aggressive, like bullies, yet also more anxious, like victims · Research speculate that these kids may have developed hostile attributional biases as result of being victims and that such biases make them more likely to act aggressively toward others in future whom they suspect may harm them · These Victims-to-bullies have high rates of anxiety and depression that were as high or higher than kids who were just victims · In a study, ¾ of victims report having a classmate who defends them against bullies, and that kids who defend others tend to have empathy for victims and confidence they will be successful · Many kids engage in social bullying behaviors known as RELATIONAL AGGRESSION, such as excluding others from the group, withholding friendship to inflict harm, and spreading rumors to ruin a peer's reputation · Unlike physical aggression, which harms victim physically and perhaps emotionally, relational aggression is aimed at damaging the victim's peer relationships · Particularly common among high status kids, particularly high status girls · Youth who are perceived as having high status, especially if they are aware tend to increasingly use both relational and physical aggression, perhaps because they tend to be arrogant and are allowed by their peers to get away w/ it · Yet they may also use physical or relational aggression as a means of both securing and maintaining their status in the peer group GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE FUNCTIONS OF FRIENDSHIPS · GIRLS ARE MORE LIKELY than boys to desire closeness and dependency in friendship and also to worry about abandonment, loneliness, hurting others, peers' evaluations, and loss of relationships if they express anger · By age 12, girls, compared w/ boys, feel their friendships ae more intimate and provide more validation, caring, help, guidance · For instance, girls more likely than boys to report they rely on their friends for advice or help w/ homework, that they and their friends share confidences and stick up for one another, and that their friends tell them they are good at things and make them feel special · Girls also report getting more upset than boys when friends betray them, are unreliable, or do not provide support and help · Girls also report more friendship-related stress, such as when a friend breaks of friendship or reveals secrets · But, girls' relationships w/ peers are just as stable as are boys' relationships w/ peers · Girls also more likely to CO-RUMINATE w/ close friends - extnessively discuss problems and negative thoughts and feelings · Compared w/ male counterparts, girls who are socially anxious or depressed seem more susceptible to the anxiety or depression of their friends · But, while providing support, a co-ruminating anxious or depressed friend may also reinforce the other friend's anxiety or depression (especially in adolescent girls) · Girls and boys less likely to differ in amount of conflict they experience in best friendship · Boys and girls don't differ much in terms of recreational opportunities the friendships provide (ex. go to each other's house), but they often differ in time spent together in various activities (sports vs shopping) STATUS IN THE PEER GROUP · By asking kids to rate how much they like or dislike each of their classmates, they calculate a child's SOCIOMETRIC STATUS - degree to which a child is liked or disliked by his peers. · Most commonly used sociometric system classifies kids into one of 5 groups: popular, rejected, neglected, average, or controversial · Popular: rated by peers as being highly liked and accepted and highly impactful · Rejected: low in acceptance and preference and high in rejection, but also high in impact · Neglected: low in social impact - receive few pos or negative ratings. Not especially liked or disliked. Unnoticed. · Average: moderate ratings on both impact and preference. · Controversial: very high in impact but average in preference. Noticed by peers and are liked by quite few kids and disliked by quite a few others. · Over short periods like weeks or months, kids who are popular or rejected tend to remain so, whereas kids who are neglected or controversial are likely to acquire a different status · Over long periods, sociometric status more likely to change · In one study in which kids were rated by their peers, 2 years later, only those kids who had initially been rated average maintained their status overall, whereas nearly 2/3 of those who had been rated popular, rejected, controversial received diff rating later · Sociometric stability over time for rejected kids generally higher than for popular, neglected, or controversial kids, and may increase w/ the age of the child · From early childhood through adolescence, kids who are rated as objectively attractive by observers are much more likely to be popular, and are less likely to be victimized by peers · Athleticism also related to high peer status, more strongly for boys · Having popular friends boosts popularity · Beyond this, sociometric status also seems to be affected by a variety of other factors, including children's social behavior, personality, cognitions about others, and goals when interacting · Popular kids perceived as cooperative, friendly, sociable, helpful, sensitive, able to regulate emotions and behavior, have high number of low conflict friendships. More emotional and behavioral strengths · Popular kids not necessarily most likeable in their peer group. But, have other attributes, like prestige, athletic ability, physical attractiveness, or welth · Also tend to be above average in aggression, use it to obtain goals · Association between aggression and perceived popularity observed as early as preschool · Here, engage in more exclusion of other kids · Popular kids control the interactions of their peers · REJECTED kids differ from popular kids in their social motives and way they process info related to social situations · Rejected kids more likely to be motivated by goals like "getting even" and "showing them up" · More trouble finding constructive solutions to difficult situations · More anxious and depression, rated lowest by teachers in their behavioral competence · One reason they select inappropriate strategies is that their THEORY OF MIND is less developed than that of their better-liked peers. · Kids w/ low theory of mind have low prosocial behavior one year later and then higher rejection by peers two years later · 2 categories: OVERLY AGGRESSIVE REJECTED KIDS AND WITHDRAWAN REJECTED KIDS · 40-50% of rejected kids: AGGRESSIVE-REJECTED CHILDREN - prone to hostile and threatening behavior, physical aggression, disruptive behavior, delinquency · Also engage in relational aggression · At risk for becoming more aggressive over time, engaging in delinquent behavior and to exhbit symptoms of hyperactivity and attention-deficit disorder, conduct disorder, and substance abuse · But WHAT CAUSES WHAT? · Links are likely cyclical, such that kids who are aggressive may become rejected by their peers, which then leads them to be both lonely and angry, which they express through more aggression. · Bidirectional relations among kids' adjustment, social competencies, and peer acceptance. WITHDRAWAN-REJECTED CHILDREN · 10-25% of rejected category. Socially withdrawan, wary, timid, socially anxious. Frequently victimized by peers. Isolated, lonely, depressed. · Stand out, tend to be disliked, appear increasingly alienated from group over time. · May be a negative feedback loop: withdrawan kids are rejected by peers, which leads them to withdraw further to avoid peer rejection, a pattern that can repeat NEGLECTED KIDS · Kids who are withdrawan but are relatively socially competend tend to be neglected · Less sociable and less disruptive than average kids, and are likely to back away from peer interactions that involve aggression · Kids and adolescents who are simply not social and prefer solitary activities may not be especially prone to peer rejection · Receive less support from peers, yet not particularly anxious about their social interactions · In fact, other than being less socially interactive, neglected kids are rated by teachers as being as socially competent as popular kids CONTROVERSIAL CHILDREN · Tend to have characteristics of both popular and rejected kids · Tend to be aggressive, disruptive, and prone to anger, but also tend to be cooperative, sociable, good at sports, humorous · Also, seem very socially active and tend to be group leaders · Although it may seem counterintuitive that these kids could be popular, it is the case that aggressive kids sometimes develop a network of aggressve friends and are accepted in their peer group, and some elementary school and preadolescent kids who start fights and get into trouble ar eviewed as cool · At same time, tend to be viewed by peers as arrogant and snobbish, could explain why they are disliked by some CROSS-CULTURAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN FACTORS RELATED TO PEER STATUS · Rejected kids, especially those who are aggressive, more likely to have academic difficulties · Higher rates of school absenteeism and low GPA · Uninterested in school and viewed by peers and teachers as poor students · Longitudinal research indicates that students' classroom participation is lower during periods when they are rejected by peers, and tendency fo rejected kids to do poorly in school worsens over time · 25-30% of rejected kis drop out of school, compared w/ 8% or less of other kids · Kids who are rejected by peers are at risk for academic and adjustment problems · Withdrawal in many countries linked w/ peer rejection in preschool and elementary · Chinese kids who were shy, sensitive, cautious, onhibited were (unliked inhibited western counterparts) viewed by teachers as socially competent leaders, and liked by peers · Explanation - Chinese culture traditionally values self-effacing, withdrawan behavior · But, reserved behavior in China elementary school kids became increasingly associated w/ lower peer acceptance for urban kids · Economic and political changes in China have been accompanied by increased values of assertive behavior · For kids from rural areas who have had only limited exposure to dramatic cultural changes in China in recent years, shyness associated w/ high levels of both peer liking and disliking. So, for groups less exposure to cultural changes, shyness viewed w/ some ambivalence by peers. · For rural children, being unsociable is associated w/ peer rejection, whereas among North American kids it often is not, at least for younger kids 13.4. ROLE OF PARENTS IN CHILDREN'S PEER RELATIONSHIPS. · Attachment theory maintains that whether a child's attachment to parent is secure or insecure affects child's future social competence and quality of child's relationship w/ others, including peers · Securely attached kids develop positive social expectations and interact readily w/ other kids, expecting these interactions to be positive · Because of experience w/ sensitive caregiver, develop foundation for understanding reciprocity in relationships · Learn to give and take and be empathetic · Self-regulated, confident, enthusiastic, friendly · Toddlers who were insecurely attached as infants tend to be aggressive, whiny, socially withdrawn, low in popularity in elementary school · Express less happiness w/ peers, and less sympathy and prosocial behavior, and demonstrate poorer skills in resolving conflicts · Meta-analysis found that kids w/ a secure attachment to their parents had higher social competence w/ peers, while kids w/ insecure attachment exhibited poor competence, even when peer competence was assessed over 10 years · Security of attachment w/ fathers may be especially important for quality of children's and adolescents' friendships · Individual characteristics of each child, like sociability, may also influence both quality of attachments and quality of relationships w/ peers · Socially competent, popular kids tend to have warm mothers, discuss feelings w/ them · Fathers' warmth and affection toward their children have been linked to the positivity of children's interactions with close friends in the preschool years and to children's peer acceptance in elementary school · Parenting fosters self-regulation · But, it may be that kids who are aggressive and disruptive because of constitutional factors (ex. heredity, prenatal influences) elicit both negative parenting and negative peer responses; or, both harsh parenting and children's negative behavior w/ peers are due to heredity · Most likely possibility: causal links are bidirectional: parents' behavior affects children's social competence, and vice versa · Relationships w/ parents may have a stronger link to mental health than peer relationships

Chapter 14. Moral Judgement.

CHAPTER 14: MORAL JUDGEMENT · Some psychologists argue the reasoning behind a given behavior is critical for determining whether that behavior is moral or immoral, and they maintain that changes in moral reasoning form the basis of moral development · Research focuses on children's reasoning, how they think about moral issues · Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg are imp contributors to current understanding, both took cognitive developmental approach PIAGET THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT: · Piaget describes how children's moral reasoning changes from rigid acceptance of the dictates and rules of authorities to an appreciation that moral rules are a product of social interaction and are therefore modifiable · Believed interactions w/ peers, more than adult influence, account for advances in kids' moral reasoning · Studied kids playing games w/ peers involving issues or rules and fairness · Interviewed kids as to what constitutes transgression of a rule, what role a person's intentions play in morality, whether certain punishments are just, how goods can be distributed among individuals fairly · When kids heard stories about accidentally breaking things, they were asked which boy was naughtier. Piaget concluded there are 2 stages of development in kids' moral reasoning - first stage in which the outcome is more important than the intention and 2nd stage in which the intention is seen as a paramount (most important) - as well as a transitional period between them. · Piaget's first stage of moral development, which he referred to as HETERONOMOUS MORALITY, is most characteristic of kids who have not achieved Piaget's stage of concrete operations - kids younger than 7 years who are in preoperational stage. · These kids would judge that the child who broke 15 cups was naughtier (even though he had good intentions) · This response is in contrast to response of older kids, who said that the kid who was trying pilfer jam was naughtier, even though he broke only the cup · Kids in heteronomous morality stage regard rules and duties to others as unchangeable givens. Justice is whatever authorities say is right, and punishments for noncompliance is always justified. Believe what determines whether an action is good or bad are the consequences, not the motives or intentions behind it. · Suggested that young kids' belief that rules are unchangeable is due to 2 factors, one social and one cognitive · First, parenta control of kids is coercive and unilateral, leading to kids' unquestioning respect for adults' rules · 2nd, kids' cognitive immaturity causes them ot believe rules are "real" things, like chairs, that exist outside people · Transition period in which interactions w/ their peers lead them to develop ability to take one another's perspective and develop beliefs about fairness. · Around 11 or 12, kids enter 2nd stage: AUTONOMOUS MORALITY. · Believed kids at this stage no longer accept blind obedience. Fully understand rules are product of social agreement and can be changed if majority of group agrees to do so. Consider fairness and equality among people as important. Belive punishment should fit the crime, and adults are not always fair. Consider individuals' motives when evaluating their behavior · Kids typically progress from heteronomous to autonomous moral reasoning without constraint. Individual differences in rate of progress due to differences in cognitive maturity, opportunities for interactions w/ peers, reciprocal role-taking, and in how authoritarian and punitive their parents are. · CRITIQUE OF PIAGET THEORY: · Studies show that as they age, boys and girls increasingly take motives and intentions into account when judging morality of actions · Also, parental punitiveness has been associated with less mature reasoning and moral behavior, as Piaget predicted · Finally, consistent w/ Piaget's belief that cognitive development plays a role, children's performance on tests of perspective-taking skills, Piagetian logical tasks, and IQ have all been associated w/ level of moral judgement · BUT: · Piaget underestimated young kids' ability to appreciate role of intentionality in morality · When intentions are obvious, preschoolers can recognize individuals w/ bad intentions. Most 4 and 5 year olds understand that a person coud not cause a negative outcome "on purpose" if the person did not know that outcome was a possible consequence of their action. · At younger than 2 years, kids can use knowledge of intentionality to evaluate others' behavior · Ex. They try to help an adult who had tried (but failed) to assist them in retrieving a toy. · Also, young kids do not believe that some actions, such as hurting others, are right even when adults say they are · Despite shortcomings, Piaget theory provided clear and interesting arguments for research on development of moral judgement to support or refute. KOHLBERG THEORY OF MORAL REASONING · Interested in sequences through which kids' moral reasoning develops over time · On basis of longitudinal study, proposed the development of moral reasoning proceeds through specific series of stages that are DISCONTINUOUS AND HIERARCHICAL. Each new stage reflects a qualitatively different, more advanced way of thinking. · Presented kids w/ hypothetical moral dilemmas and then questioned them about issues. · Ex. Heinz Dilemma. Should a man steal a drug to save his dying wife? · He was interested in moral reasoning behind choices. Response that "Heize should steal it because he won't get caught" considered less advanced than "Heinz should steal drug because human life is more important than property or profits." · Proposed 3 levels of moral development: PRECONVENTIONAL, CONVENTIONAL, POSTCONVENTIONAL/PRINCIPLED. EACH HAS 2 STAGES WITHIN IT. · PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL: · Preconventional moral reasoning is self-centered. Focuses on getting rewards and avoiding punishment. · STAGE 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation: what is seen as right is obedience to authorities. Child's moral actions are motivated by avoidance of punishment. Child does not consider interests of others or recognize that those interests might differ from his or her own. · STAGE 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation: What is right is what is in child's own best interest or involved equal exchange between people (ex. you hurt me, so I hurt you). · CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: conventional moral reasoning centered on social relationships. Focuses on compliance with social duties and laws. · STAGE 3: MUTUAL INTERPERSONAL EXPECTATIONS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY ORIENTATION: good behavior is doing what is expected by people close to the person or what people generally expect of someone in a role. Being a good boy is important and entails having good motives, showing concern about others, and maintaining good relationships. · STAGE 4: SOCIAL SYSTEM AND CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION: involved fulfilling one's duties, upholding laws, contributing to society. Individual is motivated to keep social system going and avoid a breakdown in its functioning. · POSTCONVENTIONAL/ PRINCIPLED LEVEL: postconventional moral reasoning centered on ideals. Child at this level focuses on moral principles. · STAGE 5: SOCIAL CONTRACT OR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ORIENTATION: Moral behavior involves upholding rules that are in the best interest of the group ("the greatest good for the greatest number"), are impartial, or were mutually agreed upon by the group. As individual at this stage might reason that if society agrees that a law is not benefiting everyone, that law should be changed. · STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES: moral behavior is commitment to self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles, like life, liberty, basic human rights, dignity. Moral reasoning would asser these principles must be upheld in any society, regardless of majority opinion. When laws violate these principles, individual should act in accordance w/ these universal principles rather than with the law. It is worth noting that so few people ever attained stage 6 that Kohlberg eventually stopped scoring it as a separate stage, and many consider it an elaboration of stage 5. · Kohlberg argued people in all parts of world mve through his stages in same order, though they differ in how quickly and how far they progress. · Piaget's theory, age-related advances in cognitive skills, especially perspective taking, are believed to underlie development of higher-level moral reasoning. · Consistent w/ his theory, people w/ higher cognitive and perspective-taking skills exhibit higher-level moral reasoning. · CRITIQUE: · In longitudinal study, found moral reasoning changed systematically with age · When boys were 10 years old, used primarily stage 1 reasoning (blind obedience) and stage 2 (self-interest). After, for adolescents 14 and older, stage 3 reasoning (being "good" to earn approval or maintain relationships) was primary mode, but some occasionally used stage 4 reasoning (fulfilling duties and laws to maintain social order). Only a small number (even by age 36) achieved stage 5 (upholding best interests of group while recognizing life and liberty as universal). · Useful for understanding how cognitive processes contribute to moral behavior · BUT... · His theory and findings have been criticized. Didn't sufficiently differentiate between truly moral issues and issues of social convention. · Also, cultural differences: although kids in many non-western, noninudstrialized cultures start out reasoning much the way western kids do in his scoring system, their moral reasoning within this system generally does not advance as far as western people. May be because, in non-western societies, goal of preserving group harmony is of critical importance, whereas issues of individual rights and civil liberties are not viewed as especially relevant. · So, assessment through use of dilemmas (like Kohlberg's Heinz dilemma) is not valid across cultures. · So, many studies have used a measure that instead asks child concrete moral questions like "how important is it for a person (without losing his life) to save the life of a friend?" Here, kids of many countries shared a basic set of common values and showed same stages, supporting universality of Kohlberg's theory. · Another criticism: research has shown that kids and adults alike often reason at different levels on different occasions, or even on the same occasion (despite what Kohlberg said that once an individual attains a new stage, never reasons at a lower stage). · So, not clear if development is qualitatively discontinuous. Rather, may be gradual, may still use lower stages when doing so is consistent w/ goals, motives, beliefs. · Kohlberg did his research on boys · Carol Gilligan argued Kholber's classification is biased against females, does not recognize differences. Suggested that because of way they are socialized, males value principles of justice and rights, while females value caring, responsibility for others, avoidance of exploiting or hurting others. · Difference in moral orientation causes males to score higher on Kohlberg's dilemmas · But, there is little evidence that boys and girls or men and women score differently. · BUT, consistent w/ Gilligan arguments, during adolescence and adulthood, females focus more on issues caring about other people in moral judgements, whereas males focus on justice. · Difference most evident when individuals report on moral dilemmas in their lives. · But, there are many more gender similarities than there are differences SOCIAL DOMAIN THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT · In place of Piaget and Kohlberg stage theories, current thinking is largely drive by SOCIAL DOMAIN THEORY. · Growth in moral reasoning occurs not through stage-like change, but through gradual change based on chil'd social interactions and through direct socialization from parents. · Parents transmit values to their kids both explicitely (through teaching and discipline) and implicity (by example) · But, relationship is understood to be bidirectional, such that kids' moral judgements and related behaviors also affect their parents' behaviors. · Much like Piaget, social domain theory also emphasizes role of peers as strong influence on kids' moral development. · Peer relationships involve equal power (in contrast to parent-child relationship), which allows kids to have more agency in their behaviors in moral situations. · Peer-to-peer interactions involve numerous settings in which both observe and are forced to initiate moral behaviors · Argues in order to successfully negotiate their social worlds, kids must understand principles in 3 DIFFERENT DOMAINS OF SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE: · First is MORAL DOMAIN - kids understand that the universal concepts of right and wrong, fairness, justice, and individual rights apply across contexts and supersede rules or authority. Parents play imp role in this by teaching kids how/why to cooperate with, take perspective of, and help other people. · Second is SOCIETAL DOMAIN: encompasses concepts regarding rules and conventions through which societies maintain order. Ex. Choices about clothes, manners, and forms of greeting. Knowledge helps kids negotiate interactions with peers and adults in env. · Third is PERSONAL DOMAIN - pertains to actions in which individual preferences are main consideration. No right or wrong choices. Covers decisions kids make about appearance, money, choice of friends. Decisions they make are central to development of identity and autonomy. · Support for social domain theory has grown in last 2 decades. Kids age 4-9 rate moral transgressions (like hitting, teasing, etc) as morally wrong, even when transgression is perpetrated against a bully. · From early age, kids distinguish between moral and societal transgressions. · By age 3, kids believe violations f moral rules are more wrong than violations of societal conventions. · By 4, believe that moral transgressions, but not societal, are wrong even if an adult does not know about them or even if adult didn't say they are wrong. · Ex. A boy says that even if a rule says it's okay to hurt people, you shouldn't do it. (Moral). The same boy says that if a rule says it's okay to take your clothes off, you should do it. (Societal). · With regard to both moral and societal issues in the family, kids (and to a lesser degree adolescents) believe that parents have authority, unless the parent gives command that violate moral or societal principles. · With respect to matters of personal judgement, however, even preschoolers tend to believe they themselves should have control. Older kids and adolescents stronglu believe they should control choices in personal domain at home and school. Parents usually feel they should have some authority over kid's personal choices, even into adolescence. CULTURAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES · Moral, societal, and personal judgements discussed above are found across cultures · Moral judgements in particular, such as judgements about behaviors related to fairness and welfare of others, are universal · Kids from many countries protested when they were at a disadvantage compared to another child · Recognized unfairness when it happened to them · But only kids from Canada, US, and Uganda recognized unfairness when they are the one at an advantage · Kids in India believe they have a clear moral obligation to attend to needs of one's parents and friends, while kids in US appear to consider it a matter of personal judgement or combo of moral and personal judgements · Even within a society, religious beliefs may affect what is considered a moral judgement or societal judgement · Ex. In Finland, conservative religious adolescents less likely to make a distinction between moral and societal domains than are nonreligious youths. For religious youths, crucial factor for societal judgements is God's word as written in Bible. · Socioeconomic status also influences it. Kids of lower income families somewhat less likely than middle-class kids to differentiate sharply between moral and societal actions and, prior to adolescence, less likely to view personal judgements as a matter of choice. · May be due to tendency of individual of low SES to place great emphasis on submission to authority and to allow kids less autonomy. · This social-class-difference in kids' views may disappear as yourths approach adolescents, but Brazilian mothers of low income adolescents still claim more control over personal issues. DEVELOPMENT OF CONSCIENCE. · CONSCIENCE is an internal regulatory mechanism that increases individual's ability to conform to standards of conduct accepted in his or her culture. · Restrains antisocial or destructive impulses and promotes child's compliance w/ adult's rules and standards, even when no one is monitoring the child's behavior. · Can promote prosocial behavior by causing child to feel guilty about engaging in uncaring behavior or failing to live up to internalized values about helping others · Because conscience is tied to cultural standards about right/wrong, psychologists long thought that morality was completely learned (nurture) · But, recent evidence w/ infants show humans may have an innate drive to prefer actions that help others over ones that hinder them · Innate component to prosocial behavior · Innate preferences for prosocial behavior may provide building blocks on which morality, learned from family and culture, is built · Kids develop a conscience slowly over time · By age 2, start to recognize moral standards and rules and exhibit signs of guilt when they do something wrong · Individual differences in 2 components of conscience (desire to comply w/ rules and feelings of guilt when failing to do so) are stable in early development 22-45 months · Kids' growing understanding of others' emotions and goals, and increasing capacity for empathic concern, are contributors · As they mature, more likely to take on their parents' moral values, and exhibit guilt for violating them, IF parents use diciplinary practices low in parental power and high in reasoning that help kids understand and learn the parents values · Also facilitated by positive parent-child relationship, which inclines kids to be open to parents' values · Kids w/ diff temperaments develop conscience in diff ways · Toddlers prone to fear unfamiliar people exhbit more guilt at young age · For infants prone to fear, development of conscience promoted by mother's use of gentle discipline that includes reasoning w/ child and providing nonmaterial incentives for compliance · When moms use gentle discipline, fearful kids do not become so anxious that they tune out their mother's message about desired behavior · Gentle disciple arouses fearful kids enough that they attend to and remember what mom tells them · In contrast, gentle discipline unrelated to development of conscience in fearless young kids. Insufficient to arouse their attention. · A relationship of responsive parenting, mutual cooperation, and positive affect does foster development of consciousness in fearless kids. · Fearless kids appear motivated more by desire to please their mom than by fear of her · Little research has been conducted w/ fathers, but one study did not find a similar match between kids' fearfulness and fathers' parenting behaviors · Effects of parenting on kids' conscience also vary w/ child's genes because genes affect kids' temperaments · Can be seen in dynamic between maternal responsiveness (mom's acceptance and sensitivity) and child's genotype for serotonin transporter gene SLC6a4 · A particular allele variance is believed to make kids especially reactive to rearing env · For kids w/ this allele, high maternal responsiveness associated w/ high levels of conscience at 15-52 months · For kids w/ same variant, low maternal responsiveness associated w/ low conscience · For kids w/ a diff allele, their level of conscience is unrelated to their mom's responsiveness · This is an example of GOODNESS OF FIT between temperament and env, whereby some kids are more reactive to parenting · In a longitudinal study, kids' levels of guilt at 22 and 45 months predicted their morality at 54 months. This, in turn, predicted whether they engaged in hurtful or problematic social behavior at 67 months. · In related study, kids' internalization of parental rules at 2-4 years preicted their self-perceptions as being moral at 67 months. · So, nature of parent-child disciplinary interactions sets stage for subsequent moral development 14.2. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR. · PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR - voluntary behavior intended to benefit others, like helping, sharing with, or comforting them. · All kids are capable of prosocial behaviors, but vary in how often they engage in these behaviors and why · Rooted in capacity to feel empathy and sympathy · Empathy is emotional response to another's emotional state · Sympathy is feeling of concern for another in response to the other's emotional state or condition · Although sympathy is often outcome of empathizing w/ negative emotion, what distinguishes sympathy is the element of concern. · People who experience sympathy are not merely feeling the same emotion as the other person · Piaget believed kids can't take perspective of others until age 6 or 7 · But it's clear that kids have some ability to understand others' perspectives much earlier · By 14 months, kids become emotionally distressed when they see other people upset and express verbal and nonverbal concern for an adult who has been hurt · So, studies suggest kids feel empathy and sympathy by 2nd year · By 18 to 25 months, toddlers in labs sometimes share personal object w/ an adult whom they have seen being harmed by another · Sometimes comfort an adult who is injured or distressed · Such behaviors likely to occur if adult explicitely and emotionally communicates his need, but sometimes occur even when adult does not · Kids in 2nd year also more likely to try to comfort someone who is upset than to become upset themselves, indicating they know who is suffering · In 2nd and 4th year, some typs of prosocial behaviors increase while others decrease · In a study, 3 and 4 year olds more likely than 2 year olds to provide assistance or verbal reassurance to adults who were emotionally distressed because had broken a toy or hurt themselves · So, may not be able to act on feelings of sympathy when others are distressed until age 3, in part because that's the age when they begin to understand social norms · COOPERATION another form of prosocial behavior, driven by sympathy but may also be driven by child's sense of fairness. · Kids 14 months could cooperate in a study w/ another kid or an adult to reach a goal to benefit them both · Cooperative prosocial behavior may have evolved especially in humans (not other primates) ORIGINS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR BIOLOGICAL FACTORS · Many biologists and psychologists have proposed that humans are biologically predisposed to be prosocial · Believe humans have evolved capacity for prosocial behavior because collaboration in foraging for food and in repelling enemies ensured survival · So, people who help others are more likely to be assisted when they are in need, more likely to survive and reproduce · Assisting those w/ same genes increases likelihood those genes will be passed on · 2 year olds are happier when giving treats to others than when taking treats for themselves. Holds true across cultures. · Evolutionary explanations pertain to human species as a whole, and do not explain individual difference in empathy, sympathy, prosocial behavior · Genetic factors contribute to individual differences · Twins' reports of their own empathy and prosocial behavior are considerably more similar for identical twins than for fraternal twins · In one study of kids' prosocial behaviors, researchers observed young twins' reactions to adult similations of distress in home and in lab, and had twins' mothers report on their everyday prosocial behavior · On basis of heritability estimates, role of genetic factors in children's prosocial concerns for others and in their prosocial behavior increases w/ age · Certain genes are associated w/ individual differences in oxytocin, a hormone that plays a role in pair bonding and parenting that has been associated w/ parental attachment, empathy, prosocial behavior · Also, differences in temperament · Ex. Differences in kids' ability to regulate emotion are related to their empathy and sympathy. · Kids who experience emotion without getting overwhelmed by it are especially likely to experience sympathy and act prosocially. · Kids who are not responsive to others' emotions or are too inhibited to help others may be unlikely to act prosocially. · Regulation also related to kids' theory of mind, and theory of mind predicts prosocial behavior · So, differences in social cognition AND temperament related to heredity in sympathy and prosocial behavior! SOCIALIZATION OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR · 3 ways in which parents socialize prosocial behavior: · 1. Modeling and teaching · 2. Arranging opportunities for kids to engage in prosocial behavior · 3. Disciplining kids and eliciting prosocial behavior from them · Parents also communicate and reinforce cultural beliefs about value of prosocial behavior · Kids imitate other people's helping and sharing behavior, even that of strangers · Kids especially likely to imitate prosocial behavior of adults w/ whom they have a positive relationship · May help explain fact that parents and kids tend to be similar in levels of prosocial behavior, but heredity also contributed to similarity · One effective way to teach kids prosocial behaviors is discuss the appeal and ability to sympathize · Parental support of and attachment to the child have been found to be especially predictive of prosocial behavior for youths low in fearfulness · But, prosocial, sympathetic kids might also elicit support from their parents · In contrast, a parenting style that involves physical punishment, threats, and authoritarian approach tend to be associated w/ a lack of sympathy and prosocial behavior in kids and adolescents · If kids are regularly punished for failing to engage in prosocial behavior, may start to believe the reason for helping others is to avoid punishment · If kids are given material rewards for prosocial behaviors, may come to believe they helped solely for rewards · Discipline that involves reasoning helps. Especially true when reasoning points out the consequences of child's behavior for others and encourages perspective taking. · Such reasoning also encourages sympathy for others and provides guidelines kids can refer to in future situations · Maternal use of reasoning oriented toward others seems to increase prosocial behavior, as long as moms state their reasoning in an emotional tone of voice · Emotion in mother's voice likely catches her toddler's attention and communicates that she is very serious about what she is saying · Combo of parental warmth and certain practices seems to be effective for fostering prosocial tendencies in kids and adolescents · So, kids tend to be more prosocial when their parents are not only warm and supportive but also when they model prosocial behavior, including reasoning and references to moral values and responsibilities in their discipline, and expose their kids to prosocial models and activities (ex. authoritative parenting) · PEER INFLUENCES: practice w/ peers translates into prosocial behavior. A study found that pairs of kids w/ highest moral reasoning were most successful at resolving conflict · Adults' use of reasoning in discipline contributes to development of prosocial behavior 14.3. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR. · ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR - disruptive, hostile, aggressive behavior that violates social norms or rules and that harms or takes advantage of others · AGGRESSION is a subcategory that involves acts intended to physically or emotionally harm others · Emerges very early · Ex. Between infants before 12 months · Beginning 18 months, physical aggression like hitting and pushing (particularly over possession of objects) is normative in development and increases in frequency until age 2 or 3 · With growth of language skils, physical aggression decreases, and verbal aggression increases · Conflict over possessions is an example of INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION - motivated by desire to obtain a concrete goal, like gaining possession of a toy or getting better place in line. · Preschool kids sometimes also use RELATIONAL AGGRESSION, intended to harm others by damaging their peer relationships · Typically involves excluding peers from a play activity or social group · Linked to theory of mind skills, particularly for kids w/ low levels of prosocial skills · Ex. A longitudinal study of young kids in Canada demonstrated that theory of mind skills at age 5 predicted levels of relational aggression 1 year later, but only for kids who were rated as low to average on prosocial behavior. · Drop in physical aggression in preschool years. Kids can use language to resolve or pursue conflicts and control their emotions and actions. · Overt physical aggression continues to remain low or decline in frequency for most kids during elementary school, but relatively small # of kids (most of them boys) develop frequent and serious problems with aggression and antisocial behavior at this age or early adolescence · Whereas aggression in young kids is usually instrumental (goal directed), aggression in elementary school often hostile, arising from desire to hurt someone, or motivated by need to protect oneself against threat to self-esteem · Kids who engage in physical aggression tend to also engage in relational aggression. Degree to which they use one or the other tends to be consistent across childhood · Overall, frequency of physical aggression decreases for most teenagers, at least after mid-adolescence · Despite this overall developmental trend toward less physical aggression, serious acts of violence increase in mid-adolescence, as do property offenses and status offenses like drinking and truancy · Adolescent crime peaks at age 17, while 29% of males and 12% of females report committing at least one serious violent offense · Male adolescents and adults engage in more violent behavior and crime · Consistency in individual differences in both girls' and boys' aggression across childhood and adolescence · Kids who are most aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior like stealing in middle childhood tend to be more aggressive and delinquent in adolescence than kids who first develop conduct problems at a later age · Holds especially true for boys · In a study, kids who had been identified as aggressive by peers when they were 8 had more criminal convictions and engaged in more serious crime at 30 than did those who hadn't been identified as aggressive · In study of girls only, relational aggression in childhood was related to subsequent CONDUCT DISORDERS · Many kids who are aggressive from early life have neurological deficits (ex. brain dysfunctions) that underlie problems like hyperactivity and difficulty in paying attention · These deficits, which may become more marked with age, can result in troubled relations with parents, peers, and teachers that further fuel the child's aggressive, antisocial pattern · Problems w/ attention particularly likely to have this effect because they make it hard for aggressive kids to carefully consider all the relevant information in a social situation before deciding how to act · So, their behavior is inappropriate for situation · Callous, unemotional traits, which often accompany aggression and conduct disorder, appear associated w/ delay in cortical maturation in brain areas of decision making, morality, and empathy · Youths who develop problem behaviors in adolescence typically stop engaging in antisocial behavior later in adolescence or early adulthood · BUT, some (especially those who have low impulse control, poor regulation of aggression, and weak orientation toward future) continue to engage in troublesome behaviors and have some problems with mental health and substance dependence until their mid-20s ORIGINS OF AGGRESSION AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR · Key contributors include genetics, socialization by family members, influence of peers, and culture · Precise role of biological factors is not clear · Twin studies suggest antisocial behavior runs in family, partly due to genetics · Herdeity appears to play stronger role in aggression in early childhood and adulthood than it does in adolescence, when env factors are a major contributor! · Heredity also contributes to both proactive and reactive aggression; but in terms of stability of individual differences in aggression and association of aggression with psychopathic traits (ex. callousness, lack of affect, including lack of remorse, and manipulativeness), influence of heredity is greater for proactive aggression · One genetically influenced contributor to aggression is difficult temperament · Kids who develop problems w/ aggression and antisocial behavior tend to exhbit difficult temperament and lack of self-regulatory skills from very early age · Preschoolers who exhbit lack of control, impulsivity, high activity level, irritability, distractibility are prone to fighting, delinquency, and other antisocial behavior at age 9-15 years · Also inclined toward aggression and criminal behavior in late adolescence, and, in case of men, to violent crime in adulthood · Some aggressive kids and adolescents tend to exhbit callous personality traits, in that they feel neither guilt nor empathy nor sympathy for others. Often charming but insincere and insensitive. Combo of impulsivity, attention problems, callousness in childhood predicts aggression, antisocial, and crime in adolescence. · Aggressive kids more likely to attribute hostile motives to others in contexts in which the other person's motives and intentions are unclear · Process has been called "hostile attributional bias" · Compared w/ nonaggressive peers, their goals in such social encounters more likely to be hostile and inappropriate. Want to intimidate, get back at peer. Interpret an ambiguous situation as intentional, not accidental. · Generate fewer solutions to a neg situation · Aggressive kids feel more confident of their ability to perform acts of physical and verbal aggression, and expect their aggressive behavior to result in positive outcomes (getting their way) as well as to reduce negative treatment by others · Although all these aspects of functioning contribute to the prediction of kids' aggression, not all kids exhbit same biases in social cognition · Kids who are prone to emotionally drive, hostile aggression (REACTIVE AGGRESSION - emotional, antagonistic aggression sparked by one's perception that other people's motives are hostile) perceive others' motives as hostile, initially generate aggressive responses to provocation, and evaluate their responses as morally acceptable · Kids prone to PROACTIVE AGGRESSION (unemotional, aimed at fulfilling a need/desire) ANTICIPATE MORE POSITIVE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR AGGRESSION. · Kids who experience harsh, low quality parenting at greater risk of becoming aggressive/antisocial · Ex. Kids from chaotic homes (lack of order and structure, few predictable routines, and noise) are high in disruptive behavior, and relation appears to not be due to genetics · Many kids whose parents use harsh but non-abusive physical punishment are prone to problem behaviors in early years,a ggression in childhood, criminality in adolescence and adulthoos · Especially true when parents are cold and punitive in general, when child doesn't have early secure attachment, and when child has difficult temperament and is angry and unregulated · Longitudinal studies have not found cultural, racial, ethnic differences · Ina study, although African American parents spanked their 5 year olds more than other families, spanking predicted increases in kids' aggression over time across all ethnic groups · In international study, both spanking and yelling associated w/ higher aggression, although relation was weaker if kid sviewed such parenting as normal · Very harsh physical discipline leads to kinds of social cognition associated w/ aggression, such as assuming that others have hostile intentions, generating aggressive solutions, and expecting aggressive behavior to result in pos outcomes · Parents who use abusive punishment provide salient models of aggressive behavior for their kids to imitate · Kids who are subjected to such punishments are likely to be anxious or angry and unlikely to attend to their parents instructions or demands · Probably reciprocal relation between kids' behavior and their parents' punitive discipline · But, recent research suggests that harsh physical punishment has a stronger effect on children's behavior problems than vice versa · Ineffective discipline is often evident in pattern of troubled family interaction · In this pattern, aggression of kids out of control may be unintentionally reinforced by parents who give into their kids' fits of temper and demands · Cycle of parents and kids behaving harshly w/ one another especially probably in case of out of control boys, much more likely than other boys to react negatively to mom's attempts to discipline them · Less research w/ girls. Might not follow same trend. · Relation between punitive parenting and children's aggression can have a genetic component · Parents whose genes predispose them to aggressive parenting will pass those genes on. Punitive parenting can be linked to antisocial behavior in kids both directly through genes and indirectly through a conflictual and punitive home env. · Indirect effect of parent's genes on a child's behavior is called a PASSIVE GENE-ENVIRONMENT CORRELATION · Another factor: parents' monitoring of where their kids are, whom they are with, what they are doing · Monitoring reduces likelihood that older kids and adolescents will associate with deviant, antisocial peers · Makes it more likely that parents will know whether their kids are engaging in antisocial behavior · This is supported by data from department of justice, finds that juvenile crimes peak from 4-7PM on weekdays - potentially unsupervised hours between end of school and when parents get home · Once adolescents begin engaging in aggressive behavior, become harder to monitor. Parents find that monitoring of aggressive youths can lead to such high conflict that they must back off. · Kids exposed to verbal and phys violence between their parents are more aggressive. Holds true even when genetic factors that might have caused it are taken into account. · Embattled parents model aggressive behavior for kids · Kids whose mothers are physically abused tend to believe violence is an acceptable, even natural part of family interactions · Embattled spouses less skilled and responsive, more hostile and controlling in parenting, which in turn can increase kids' aggressive tendencies · This pattern ( in which marital hostility predicts hostile parenting, which in turn predicts kids' aggression) has also been found in families w/ an adopted child, so relations cannot be due solely to genes shared by parents and kids · Kids from low SES families more antisocial and aggressive · Pattern highlighted by finding that when families escaped from povery, 4-7 year old kids tended to become less aggressive/antisocial, whereas families' remaining in poverty or moving into poverty for long term was associatd w/ an increase in kids' antisocial behavior · Greater number of stressors · Also more commonly a single parent household, or unplanned child of teenage parent · Low SES families more likely to be low in warmth, be threatening and use harsh discipline · Tend to be neighborhoods with violence and crime · Exprssion of a genetic tendency toward aggression is stronger for individuals who have aggressive friends · Kids' susceptibility to peer pressure to become involved in antisocial behavior increases in elementary school years, peaks at about 8th or 9th grade, declines after · Although not all adolesents are susceptible to neg peer influences, even popular youth in eary adolescence tend to increase participation in minor levels of drug use if these behaviors are peer approved · Peer approval of relational aggression increases in middle school · But, culturally related exceptions · Ex. Mexican American youth who are less acculturated (more tied to traditional values) appear less susceptible to peer pressure toward antisocial behavior than are Mexican American kids who are more acculturated · Thus, it may be that peers play less of a role in promoting antisocial behavior for adolescents who are embedded in a tradidional culture oriented toward adults' expectations (ex. courtesy toward adults) · BIOLOGY AND SOCIALIZATION; THEIR JOINT INFLUENCE ON CHILDREN'S ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR: · Recent genetic research shows that it is a combo that predicts aggressive behavior and that some kids are more sensitive to parenting quality than others · Kids with aggressive/antisocial problem behaviors can be treated w/ individual psychotherapy and drug therapy · Fast Track program designed to promote understanding and communication of emotions, positive social behavior, self-control, social problem solving · Kids w/ most serious behavior problems participate in intensive intervention · More effective programs target adolescents rather than younger kids