Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
63 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What key functions are served by children's friendships? How do these functions differ accross development?
|
Provide support, SE enhancement, postive self-evaluation, emotional security, affection and opportunities for disclosure, validation of interests, hopes and feers, informational assistance. Becomes more intimiate and more emotionally focused with age.
|
|
|
In what ways to friends tend to be similiar to each other?
|
age, gender, similiar in observable charactersitcs, behaviors, achievement, interests, attitudes.
|
|
|
How do children's interactions with friends differ from non-friends?
How do these differences change over development? |
More talking, task orientation, cooperation, positive affect, effective conflict management.
Distinctions between friends and non-friends are very strong by adolescence. |
|
|
What contradictory findings have emerged from research on conflict and conflict resolution between friends?
|
There is more confict with friends, more negative affect and guilty coercion, but more negotiation and disengagement, reach equitable outcomes
|
|
|
What does reserach show with respect to friendship and children's adjustment? How do these associations vary based on the stability and quality of the friendship?
|
Friendless children show internalizing difficulties and peer victimization. This predicts adult self-worth. Having a friend promotes + adjustment, protects against victimization. High quality, stable friendships = better leadership across transition and + psychological well-being
|
|
|
Who do the friendships of shy/withdrawn and aggressive children come to others with respect to prevalence, stability and quality?
|
Same prevelance, and stability. Likely to have a stable best friend, but lower quality because form relationships with similar peers
|
|
|
What behavioral characteristics are associated with popular, perceived popular and controversial?
|
popular: pro-social, intiate and maintain relationships, asertive, consider frame of reference of ongoing group - fit- in and respond to others.
perceived popular: physical and relational aggression, sense of humor, academic competence, athletic, attractive, stylish/wealthy controversial: combination of +/- behaviors |
|
|
neglected
|
neglected: less socialble, less aggressive, shy, withdrawn, interact less with peers, unstable, not very distinctive
rejected |
|
|
rejected
|
aggression: instrumental, bullying, relation: manipulate group aceptance and damage others social standing
withdrawn: anxious |
|
|
What does the research show about rejected children's self-perceptions and feelings about the self?
|
poor percieved social competency, more negative self-concept, withdrawn, self-defeating attributions.
aggresseive: overestimate social competence and peer acceptance |
|
|
peer rejection and externalizing behavior problems/ internalizing problems
|
Early rejection predicts externalizing problems in adolescence, even when controlling for stability of externalizing problems over age period. Agression grows over time, leads to more negative information-processing.
anxious- withdraws leading to internalizing problems, low SE, anxiety, depression |
|
|
Girls vs. boys
play styles |
boys: physical, aggressive, dominate space
girls: take turns, cooperate, domestic, peripherary space |
|
|
Girls vs. boys
rule-breaking |
Boys more likely to to break rules in gorups, use "naughty" words
|
|
|
Girls vs. boys
dominance patterns |
Boys: charcteristic of groups, establish quickly through rough and tumble play. Once established, aggression lessons. Boys like the dominant one
Girls: dislike the dominant one |
|
|
Girls vs. boys
Egalitaranism |
girls: more equal, take turns, agree, respond, talk about emotions, especially fear, disclose.
aggression is manipulating relationships, exclusion, gossip |
|
|
Girls vs. boys
speech styles |
boys: more non-word sounds, interrupt with better story, direct commands
girls: cooperative, don't like showing off |
|
|
girls vs. boys
conflict |
boys: more conflict, disagree more, physical
girls: "yes, but...", nice while pursuing own desires, less direct |
|
|
Why gender segregation in children's groups?
|
1. compatible play styles: girls don't like rough and tumble
2. ability to influence the other sex: girls increasingly unable to influence boys, use indirect strategies, but can influence girls. 3. Knowledge of own gender- 2.5 years : able to label and more likely to play with same sex 4. knowing and prefering gender sterotyped activties: believe it is appropriate |
|
|
Cross cultural variations on gender group patterns
|
assertiveness: valued more for chinese girls than American girls, yet less valued for chinese boys than american boys
|
|
|
what is borderwork, how does in maintain segregation?
|
teasing and chasing between groups of boys and girls
cooties budding heterosexuality: girls talk about who likes who, but boys don't boys maintain boundaries, have more power, higher status, in-groups |
|
|
schooling as a critical period
|
school entry is a critical period in development, it mediates the long-term effects of preschool.
new social contexts, must reconfigure roles, develop patterns of learning. Family reliquishes control to the school operational thinking, cognitive growth, receptive to learning, construct self-images as students |
|
|
School tracking, retention, special ed
|
consequences follow grouping: affect amount and type of instructions, view of parents, lower ranked kids get lower grades
retention: kept from age-mates |
|
|
How do parent and teacher expectations shape a child's early school perfromance?
|
believe smarter, do better, espeically in middle class
1st grade sets the standard, teaher's higher expectations - higher standards |
|
|
4 pathways of how preschool influences the child's elementary school performance
|
- easing the transition to first grade, better scores
- prevening placement in low tracks - additional learning opportunities. - rasing the expectations - providing the support of peers- cooperative players |
|
|
Impact of ASPs on academic, social/emotional, health and wellness, and prevention outcomes
|
academic: higher test sscores in reading and math, better attendance, less suspensions, less dropout, improved hw completions
social-emotional: decreased behavioral problems, initiative, self-confidence, Se, lower depression/anxiety, communication and social skills. health: better food, physical activity, knowledge of nutrition, reduced BMI, better body image prevention: avoidence of drug/alcohol, knowledge of safe sex, less delinquence/violence. |
|
|
Factors for success of AsP
|
1) access to and sustained participation: higher director salaries, advanced credentials, interests, needs, schedules
2) quality programming and staffing 3) promoting strong partnerships with school, family, commmunity |
|
|
Social competence
|
a balance between studen'ts acievement of + outome goals for themselves and adherence to school-specific expectations for behavior
|
|
|
socially competent student
|
personal goals and those sanctioned by others. smooth funtioning social groups, social integration, social approval, emotional well-being, conflict resolution
|
|
|
Why is it important to consider both personal goals and social goals?
|
the two are not always compatible
|
|
|
Structural features of k-12 schools on student outcomes
|
childcare: time spent is related to risk of inseure attachment only if mother's sensitivity is low
problem beahvior: not a clincial levels strength of school effects is typically small except when comparing extremes |
|
|
How are student outcomes affected by school climate
|
sense of community and belonging modestly related to social, behavioral, and academic outcomes. More + soical skills, less delinquency
|
|
|
How are student outcomes affected by structural changes associated with the transition of middle and high school?
|
more students, new instructional styles.
HS- greater focus on academic accomplishments, new peer groups, environment more impersonal. Teachers less caring, more focused on high grades, competition, extracurricular |
|
|
How do teachers influence behavioral competencies through structuring of cooperative learning activities?
|
promote social goals of cooperation, responsibility to the group, achieve common objectives. Stronger levels of social satisfaction.
differencial expecations: lower for minority and low-achieving students, self-fulfilling prophecy |
|
|
How do peers contribute to school competence?
|
provide information, advice, model behavior, experience that facilitates learning social expectations for behavior. Provide info about themselves: social and self-efficacy skills. Determine if things are important/fun
|
|
|
How do warm, responsive teacher-child and peer relationships help support school social competence of children and adolescents?
|
promote personal growth and adaptive social functioning, academic competence
more imporant for younger kids closeness, conflict, dependency. preschool: secure relationships can compensate for insecure ones, less aggression and withdrawn behavior elementary: negative relationship with teacher leads to externalizing behaviors adolescence: teachers that are emotionally supportive and caring, + motivation outcomes, behave prosocially and responsibly, predricts drop out |
|
|
friendship
|
close, mutural, voluntary dyadic relationship
|
|
|
sibs. vs. friends
warmth and closeness |
in early childhood, siblings are closer
in adolescence, friendships are closer |
|
|
sibs vs. friends
relative status/power |
friends - horizontal, symmetrical
siblings - vertical, assymmetrical |
|
|
sibs vs. friends
conflict/rivalry |
friends - conflicts are resolved more readily and effectively than sibling conflicts
- rate of conflict is similar for siblings and friends |
|
|
sibs vs. friends
voluntariness? |
siblings - often involuntary
friends - voluntary |
|
|
3 pathways friends influence children's development
|
1) Having friends: selection effects: child characteristics, correlated with peer aceptance. having friends indicates well-being, protective against rejection and victimization
2) Who one's friends are: similar demographics, mututal socialization - makes kids more similar, advantages to having well-adjusted friends for youth at risk, problematic friends leads to externalizing, aggressive, depressive 3) Friendship quality: supportive> + school outcomes, improved mood and well-being. negative, conflict, delinquency, disruptive behavior, depressive feelings. |
|
|
co-rumination
|
excessive discussion of personal problems
|
|
|
how do sociometric assessment methods identify status?
what are the limitations of the methods? |
peers evaluate one another's likability - through peer nomination (+ and -)
limitations: ethical issues, have to get all parents permission, doesnt address behavioral rejection, used in limited context - school, variations in correlates of sociometric status; gender, ethnicity, culture, age |
|
|
describe sociometrically rejected. How do these kids differ from neglected and controversial?
|
many negative nominations, few positive ones.
perceived as unattractive resistent to control, negative affect, shyness/inhibition, aggressive, withdrawn, anxietydepression neglected: solitary, less sociable, non-aggressive controversial: aggressive, hot-tempered, sociable |
|
|
risk for later adjustment problems
rejected neglected controversial |
rejected: stable peer status, risk for adj. problems esp. when combined with aggressive and/or withdrawal
externalzing and internalizing problems neglected: less stable peer status, not linked to adjustment problems controversial: unclear whether they are at risk |
|
|
Intervention and prevention strategies for peer relation difficulties?
results |
Social skills training - model/practice, coaching
social skills curricula for entire class, social-cognitive processes results: modes effects on social-cognitive processes and target behaviors, limited effect on sociometric status: not sustained over time |
|
|
fast-track project
|
parent training, school-based SSt, home visiting, academic tutoring for aggressive children.
results: reduces aggression, improved peer social preference long term: reduced aggression but no sustained effect on sociometric status |
|
|
What are the criticisms Thorne raises about the "two cultures" perspective?
|
- fails to account for within gender variations
- fails to account for the influence of the social context - fails to account for sociocultural variation |
|
|
When is gender segregation less likely to occur?
|
- in neighborhoods (vs. schools)
- when there are few playmates - mixed-age groups - teachers structure mixed-sex activities - novel situations with unfamiliar peers |
|
|
What cultural differences have been found with respect to gender segregation?
|
in low income Italian and African American girls - less avoidance of cross-gender interaction
African American, Latina, and Chinese - prefer direct argumentation |
|
|
Evidence for gender segregation leading to sex-typed behaviors?
|
more time spent with same sex leads to more sex-typed behavior
boys: more rough and tumble, aggression, play away from the teacher girls: less activity and aggression, more gender-typed play, play near adults |
|
|
unique features of the classroom environment
|
physical environment: specified seating, teacher directed activities, whole class instruction, small group work, individual seat work
classroom comm.: speaking rules/restrictions, question-reply-response, verbal emphasis behavioral expectations: self-regulation, self control, paying attention, stay seated, follow directions, work independently, sharing, turn-taking performance evaluation: tests, grades, public evaluation, social comparison |
|
|
Risk of poor children in the transition to elementary school?
Preschool benefits |
- higher risk for retention, more likely to attend resource-poor schools with unprepared teachers.
- high quality preschool: higher IQ's, grades, achievement, reduced retention and placement in special ed. |
|
|
Tharp's cultural compatibility hypothesis
|
education is more effective if taught in a way compatible with native culture.
|
|
|
Findings of the KEEP project
|
- Hawaiian children benefited from small mixed-sex groups withpeer teaching
- Navajo benefited from individual and small group instruction, same sex - Navajo children benefited from longer wait times, and patient turn taking - Hwaiian children prefer shorter wait time, lively, rapid overlapping speech |
|
|
Short-term effects of teacher-child relationship on children's school adjustment?
|
closeness: better academic performance, school adjustment, school liking, self-directedness
conflict/dependency: school avoidance and dislike, less self-directedness and cooperation, poor academic performance, increased withdrawal and aggression with peers |
|
|
How do children's friendships and peer relationships contribute to school adjustment?
|
Having friends = + school ajust. Children who maintain friendships throughout the year develop more favorable school attitudes: more enjoyable with friends, children feel less lonely, better attendence/ performance
acceptance: fosters sense of belonging, facilitates futre positive social relationships, better school adjustment rejection: operates as a stressor, negative working model about social relationships, negative school perception and avoidance, low school performance. |
|
|
What is the continuum of youth services? Where are youth development programs?
|
youth development
primary prevention short-term intervention long term treatment incarceration from supporting healthy development to social control. |
|
|
1. What is the philosophy behind youth development programs?
|
promote + development, even when seeking to prevent problems
"problem free is not fully prepared" |
|
|
Characteristics of effective youth development programs/.
ICAN Peer leadership program |
goals: to promote + development, even when seeking to prevent problems
atmosphere: supportive relationships with adults and peers empower youth high, positive expectations. activities: formal and informal opportunities to nurture interests and talents, practice new skills, gain a sense of recognition. Skill building, real and challenging activities, broader horizons, developmental supports in other contexts: family, school, community. |
|
|
Barriers to participation in ASPs for older youth
|
- perceived reduced need for ASPs
- financial constraints - employment - 40% work - disinterest/ boredom - Relax factor - family responsibilites - transportation |
|
|
Strategies to keep youth engaged in ASPs
|
- leadership and real world experience: opportunities for income
- flexible attendance policies, accessible locations - bridge between school and community |
|
|
Return on investment in ASPs
|
- positive return for public and private funders
- taxpayer savings: $2.19-$3.22 saved per dollar invested. |
