sibs, peers, prosociality, and aggression messinger

Sibs, peers, prosociality, and aggression

Messinger

04/21/23 Messinger 3

Questions

Are siblings similar and do they share exactly the same environment?

Describe 3 levels of analysis used to understand peer relations.

Describe two dimensions of social status and how they give rise to four types of kids.

What is pro-social behavior and what type of parenting promotes it?

How does abuse affect social development and what social factor can moderate the impact of abuse?


More questions

In the relational model, what is the function of aggression and what determines whether there will be reconciliation?

Describe genetic and environmental factors that could influence the stability of aggressive behaviors

Describe similarities in attachment representations of parents, peers, and intimate partners


Why are siblings so different?

Siblings are often no more alike than random children chosen from similar backgrounds

Full siblings share a quarter of their genes Do they share (exactly) the same

environment?– Each provides the other’s environment– They are complementary


Sulloway: Competition for parental resources Attention, food, birthrights Firstborns - align perspectives and interests

with those of parents– Less open to change

Excel in domains left open by firstborn– More open to change


Historical Evidence

Propensity of first-borns and later-borns to spear-head or resist radical change (social, religious, and scientific)

– Factors in age and social attitudes

E.g., Radical scientific controversies

– 73% correct classification ?


Criticism: Personality surveys tell a different story Researchers in personality psychology who

had worked on birth order using surveys in which the subjects self-report. When subjects fill out the surveys themselves, birth-order differences seem considerably smaller than they are with historical samples, or with life stories of contemporary individuals.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2001-04-27/feature.html


Levels of analysis

Interactions– The braiding of two individual’s behavior

Relationships– “succession of interactions”

Friendship is a reciprocal, voluntary relationship based on affection

Groups – collection of interacting kids– Defined by cohesiveness, hierarchy, heterogeneity


Implications

Interactions, relationships, and groups are mutually constitutive and have emergent properties

Concepts like popularity exist at an individual and group level


Constructing Shared Meanings During Sibling Pretend Play Kindergarteners with older (7) or younger (3.6) sib. Older dyads more shared meaning strategies Younger dyads engaged in disruptions to play flow Firstborns used more disruptions, second-borns extended

partner's ideas. – Dyadic strategies to construct shared meanings (e.g., extensions,

building on) positively associated with frequency of pretense and internal state language.

Sibling relationship illuminates social understanding and relationship dynamics during pretend play.

Child Development, 2005, Howe et al.


Closeness in young adult sibling relationships

Interaction between close siblings characterized by higher positive affect, fewer power struggles, lower heart rate reactivity, higher scores of emotional empathy and cognitive aspects of empathy such as perspective-taking than distant siblings.

No evidence that sibling closeness was related to family structure variables.

Shortt & Gottman, 1997. Social Development, 142-164.


Peer overview

Kids are interested in kids Preferring peers to adults early on and more

dramatically with development– Finding appropriate models for their

developmental niche


Early development

Infants have rudimentary abilities (to 1 yr)– I.e., increased gazing at peers

Toddlers– Imitate and are aware of being imitated– Have reciprocal relationships with specific kids


Early childhood

Types of play– Unoccupied, solitary, on-looking, parallel, associative,

cooperative – Parallel play is important transitional activity– Pretend play emerges (inter-subjectivity)

Friendship emerges– More prosocial and aggressive behavior with friends

As do dominance hierarchies


Middle childhood & school

Peer interaction rises and changes– 10% (3 y olds) to 30% (middle childhood)– Peer group increases and is less supervised

Friendship develops– Friends more likely to resolve conflicts with

eye toward protecting relationship Groups emerge

– and understanding of role and status in group


Adolescence

29% of waking time with peers– Out of classroom

Friendship– Autonomy granting and increased intimacy

Groups– Single sex cliques thought to mesh into looser mixed-

sex groups Crowds

– Druggies, loners, brains, jocks– Increasingly prominent aspect of social life


Theories

Sullivan emphasized pre-adolescent chumships as foundation of intimacy and precursor to romantic coupling

Piaget emphasized moral development occurring during give-and-take with peers (rather than obedience to, or rebellion against, adults)


Assessment techniques

Observation– Not enough known about process of friendship

formation and rejection, but see Gottman Peer report

– Sociometry Moderately stable (.4 - .7)

– Depending on construct

Teacher report Agreement across sources - low to moderate What would you use?


Social status

High Disliking(Rejection)

Low Liking

RejectedKids

Low Disliking

NeglectedKids

High Liking(Acceptance)

PopularKids

ControversialKids

Neglected, popular

Neglected kids– Less interaction of all types– Social competence reports = average kids

Popular kids– High prosocial behaviors, low aggression

Rejected kids– 40=50% are aggressive


Parenting and peers

Security of attachment has a pervasive moderate impact on quality of peer relations

Parenting beliefs influence behaviors influencing social competence & peer relations – Child-directed parenting pos. peer relations– Inept parenting antisocial behavior peer

rejection But reverse cycle is also plausible


Relative

Relation between behavior and popularity depends on whether behavior is normative– Chinese popularity highlights reticence– Friendship possibilities depend on similarity to group

Cross-cultural work needs to be done– Cross-age groups understudied?

Sex differences less pronounced than might be expected


A “Multitude” of SolitudeThree forms of social withdrawal in Early Childhood Coplan & Armer

Shyness– Wariness/anxiety due to social novelty and perceived evaluation

Behavioral inhibition

– Linked to maladjustment across lifespan Extreme shyness (Boys)

– Protective and Risk factors Protective: language ability, high-quality friendship Risk: parental overprotection, negative emotional climate classrooms

Social Disinterest– “Non-fearful” preference for solitary play, unsociability– Independent of shyness, Assumed to be relatively benign

Association: solitary play and peer rejection/internalizing problems (Spinrad et al., 2004)

Solitary play not a sufficient indicator of social disinterest? (Coplan et al., 2004)

Nayfeld

Social Avoidance– Low-social approach and high-social avoidance– May be most at risk– Research needed:

Distinct from other forms ? Manifestation of extreme fearful shyness? Pre-cursor to child depression?

Future directions – Identification and differentiation – Factors /underlying mechanisms

Influence and interaction over time High shyness and high sociability

– Cross-cultural research

Nayfeld

Trajectories of Social Withdrawal from Middle Childhood to Early Adolescence (Oh, Rubin, Bowker, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor, & Laursen, 2008)

Kolnick

1. Predictors of trajectory (between)– 5th grade (decreasing & increasing > low-stable)

Prosocial behavior Peer exclusion/victimization

– 6th grade (increasing > low-stable) Peer exclusion/victimization Friendship involvement

Kolnick

Social withdrawal

Trajectories of Social Withdrawal from Middle Childhood to Early Adolescence (Oh, Rubin, Bowker, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor, & Laursen, 2008)

1. Trajectory patterns– Low-stable (85%)– Decreasing (8 %)– Increasing (7%)

Discussion

Trajectories consistent with other study of social withdrawal trajectories from 1st to 6th grade

– Decreasing trajectory: Highest initial withdrawal

– Increasing trajectory Both friend absence and unstable friend presence

– Predictors of membership Exclusion and victimization matter But, so does prosocial behavior

– Compliance? Unexpected: having a friend predicts increasing social withdrawal

Friendship: protective or risk factor?– Share maladaptive characteristics

Friend’s withdrawal predictive Co-rumination? Friendship quality NOT predictive

Kolnick

Children with an early childhood history of anxious solitude were more rejected, poorly accepted (boys), and victimized (girls) by peers and demonstrated more depressive symptoms (girls) in 1st-grade classrooms with a negative observed emotional climate.

Messinger

Social withdrawal and maladjustment in a very group-oriented society.

Withdrawal associated with loneliness in Cuban data > Canadian data,

Aggression a correlate of loneliness in the Cuban data from both cohorts.

Pronounced role of peer group in Cuban society regulating social behaviours.

Sociometric, 4 & 6 grade, 2 cohorts. Valdivia, Ibis Alvarez; Schneider, Barry H.; Chavez, Kenia Lorenzo; Chen, Xinyin

International Journal of Behavioral Development. Vol 29(3), May 2005, 219-228.



Prosocial Development


Prosocial behavior

Voluntary behavior intended to benefit another– Empathy – Understanding-based feeling of what other

is feeling– Sympathy – Sorrow/concern for other

Linked to helping, HR down

Different from personal distress – – Self-focused aversive negative emotional reaction to

other Linked to getting out of there, HR up

– So regulating negative emotion is important


Prosocial integrative model (743)

Rises with age Stronger in girls Influenced by sociability, social

competence, regulation of emotion “Some consistency” in prosocial behavior Strong situational influences

– Diverse measures


Cross-cultural

Cultures in which children are more pro-social tend to involve extended families, strong female role, less division of labor– Reciprocal prosocial obligations valued

as/more highly than individual obligation


Family

Good parenting good empathy– Kochanska– Empathy springs from brain-based caregiving

systems (Panksepp 706)– Siblings caring for younger sibs


Discipline

Inductive techniques – ‘How do you think David feels?’ linked to pro-social behavior/sympathy

Power assertive techniques do not work as a modal technique, but can be important in a more reciprocal context

Authoritative parenting – warmth and control– Regulation of negative emotion– Plus role modeling for optimal prosociality – And providing early pro-social opportunities

Foot-in-the-door technique


Social status

High Disliking(Rejection)

Low Liking

RejectedKids

Low Disliking

NeglectedKids

High Liking(Acceptance)

PopularKids

ControversialKids

Fernandez

Popularity within Peers

• Sociometrically popular: Tim– Well liked by others– High prosocial & cooperative behaviors– Low aggressive behaviors

• Perceived popular: Jason– Well known, socially central & emulated – High prosocial behaviors– High aggressive & antisocial behaviors

Fernandez

• Conceptualization & measurement– Social power of perceived popularity (qualitative)– Peer-normation procedure (quantitative)

• like most - like least• most popular - least popular

– No a priori definition

• Social behaviors– Aggression

• Overt• Relational

– “model” vs “tough”– Differences due to age & gender


Antisocial and prosocial popular boys

Popular pro-social boys – High Academic, Affiliative, Popular, Winning

Popular anti-social boys – High Aggressive, Popular, Winning

Differentiated by teacher ratings– Self & peer nominations also distinguish the groups

E.g., on Aggression and Academics

Both types are often-named members of prominent classroom groups

Rodkin & Farmer. (2000). Heterogeneity of Popular Boys: Antisocial and Prosocial Configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14-24

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/peers_social_general/rodkin.toughboys.dp2000.pdf

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/peers_social_general/rodkin.toughboys.dp2000.pdf


Varies by classroom characteristics

The Experiential Setting of Les Misérables

• The community surround– Theater productions were a big deal in this town!– Apparent “goal consensus”

• The program culture– Internal culture with its distinctive tools – cultivated by Ann and Ruth

• Commitment to high standards• Openness to strong emotional experiences• Provision of emotional support

• Emotional experiences– Disappointment with casting– Satisfaction and elation about doing well– Anger and stress with interpersonal obstacles– Anxiety and stage fright

Farhat

What Youth Learned and How• Emotional knowledge

– Individual differences in people’s emotional patterns (differ across context)

– Influence of past experiences– Contingencies – How emotions influence the group

• Managing anger and interpersonal stress• Managing elation and positive emotion2 salient themes emerged in the data:

– Youths as agents of change– Adults credited with facilitating a special type of setting

Farhat

Farhat

•Among friended children, no prospective associations between social isolation and either internalizing or externalizing problems. •Among unfriended children, initial social isolation subsequent increases in internalizing and externalizing;

•Initial internalizing and externalizing predicted subsequent increases in social isolation.

Friends don’t let friends…internalize & externalize

Farhat

Modeling homophily over time with an actor-partner interdependence model

Popp, D., Laursen, B., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. (2008). Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1028-1039.

• Why do friends engage in similar deviant behavior (homophily)?– Socialization: friends influence behavior– Selection: deviant kids choose deviant friends

• Evidence for selection effect– Higher similarity in deviant behavior pre-friendship

• Evidence for socialization effect– Increased deviant behavior controlling for pre-friendship levels

• Difficulty in disentangling unique contributions– Friends behave interdependently, i.e. behaviors are not statistically independent– Actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) takes this into account

Fuccillo

Actor-partner interdependence model

• 7th & 10th graders in small Swedish city– Nominated 3 important peers on 3 consecutive years– Reported frequency of intoxication each year

• Reciprocated friendship groups (451 dyads)• Randomly paired comparison groups to gauge age-related

increases (545 dyads)– Friendless– Friended– Total sample

Control for additional unobserved sources of similarity (socialization)

Control for “actor” stability

Control for initial similarity (selection)

Control for “partner” influence

T1 T2 T3

Enduring

Waning

Nascent

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Intermittent Fuccillo

Nascent friend dyads

• Selection effects– Based on correlation between Time 2, Time 3 & Nascent friends before friendship– Relatively small correlations in comparison groups

• Socialization effects– Based on residual correlation of Time 2, Time 3 & Nascent friends during friendship– Relatively small correlations in comparison groups

• Selection and socialization effects similar in magnitude across models• Partner influence effects

– Based on nascent group as friendship developed– Older child influence at first, then mutual influence– No significant effects in comparison groups

FriendsFriendsNot friends

Fuccillo

sibs, peers, prosociality, and aggression messinger

Documents