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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Friendship |
A close relationship between two particular people as indicated by their association together or their psychological attachment and trust |
|
|
Selman (age related change in friendship) |
3-6 playing together 5-9 one way assistant 7-12 reciprocity 10-15 exclusive intimacy Over 12 autonomous interdependence |
|
|
Damon (age difference) |
Under 7 = those you play with 8-11 = shared interest, trust and kindness 12+ = mutual understanding and intimacy |
|
|
Bigelow and la gaipa (age difference) |
Younger children focused on proximity and common interests Older children focused on loyalty and intimacy |
|
|
Evaluation of age related differences in friendship |
- complex and abstract understanding of friendship due to increase in ability to express such ideas in language -studies can be subjective as most require analysis of interviews and written essays -uses hypothetical situations to invoke response which may be different from the way they would Handel real life situations -effects of socialisation and expectations |
|
|
Sex differences in friendship |
Children prefer the company of their own sex Boys spend time in large groups and focus on shared activities Girls have intimate relationships in pairs and focus on emotional closeness |
|
|
Benenson (sex difference) |
10 yr old children to rate peers using friendship and play rating scales and describe their peers Boys had more extensive social networks of interconnected friendships Girls had small, more intimate groups |
|
|
Benenson and christakos (sex difference) |
60 boys and 60 girls aged between 10-15 years Girls friendship lasted for shorter time Girls were more upset at the thought of their friendship ending Girls were more aware of the fragility and vulnerability of relationships Boys appear to be much less sensitive and much less concerned |
|
|
Evaluation of sex difference in friendship |
Biological = boys have larger groups as a mean to compete for dominance hierarchy Girls prefer smaller groups for individual support Behaviourist = cause by reinforcement of sex appropriate behaviour SLT = boys and girls are copying the behaviours of adult models |
|
|
Coie and dodge (popularity and rejection) |
Popular children = most liked by peers Average children = peers do not have strong feelings for or against them Controversial children = have many friends as well as disliked by some children Neglected = choose to play alone even though they had adequate social skills Rejected aggressive = behavioral problems, poor social skills and often misreading others Rejected withdrawn = passive and withdrawn. High levels of social anxiety. Often target of bullying |
|
|
Dodge et all (popularity and rejection) |
Popular children = socially adept so made group oriented statement and was able to join in Rejected children = were aggressive and forceful leading to disruption of play Neglected children = made no attempts to join in |
|
|
Causes of popularity and rejection |
1) physical attractiveness 2) similarity 3) personality characteristics 4) social skills |
|
|
Xie et al (popularity and rejection) |
489 African american students interviewed at the ages of 6, 9 and 12 6 = positive social behaviours 9 and 12 = appearance and self presentation 12+ = deviant behaviours (mainly boys) |
|
|
Consequences of popularity and rejection |
Childhood popularity associated with positive life outcomes Rejection can lead to psychiatric problems into adulthood Links to later mental health difficulties such as alcoholism, depression and delinquency |
|
|
Bagwell (effects of rejection) |
334 us children at the age of 10 Two groups = friended children who had a stable best friend Chumless children who had no two way friendship When assessed at age of 23 rejected children had poorer life status and showed symptoms of mental disorder while those who had childhood friends had better family relationships and self esteem |
|
|
Evaluation of causes of popularity and rejection |
- no clear cause and effect between social inadequacy and rejection - early argumentative behavior predicted later unpopular status |
|
|
Evaluation of consequences of popularity and rejection |
- no cause and effect - behaviour was a cause and a consequence of their rejection - aggressive temperaments may be a better indication of negative life outcomes than peer rejection - effects of being friendless rejected may be different than if they had one or two friends |
|
|
Parker and asher (rejection) |
Casual model = aggressive and withdrawn behaviours cause low peer acceptance which leads to later negative behaviours Incidental model = aggressiveness result in peer rejection but it has no real role to play in causing later negative outcomes |
