Child Psych Exam 3

Front 1

Gender Differences

Back 1

There are documented gender differences
–Exs: physical aggression, activity level, verbal skills, spatial skills (boys better at SK and mental rotation)
But:
•Relatively few documented differences
–Gender stereotypes suggest more differences than are actually documented by research
•Even documented differences are relatively small in size
–Average behavior of males and females is not extremely different (a lot of overlap)

Front 2

Gender Differences: Processes

Back 2

•Process by which a child:
–Becomes aware of his or her gender and that of other people
–Acquires information about the characteristics and behaviors associated with males and females (gender stereotypes)
–Acquires gender-typed characteristics and behavior (gender roles)
-Process by which they adopt masculine and feminine gender roles

Front 3

Development of Gender Awareness: ages and gender

Back 3

•Between 2 and 3 years, children can identify themselves as “boys” or “girls”
•Do not yet understand that gender is a permanent characteristic
•By 2 years of age, children have some knowledge of gender stereotypes (maybe even earlier)
•Over the preschool and early school years, learn more about behaviors and activities/occupations typically associated with males and females

Front 4

STUDY: Dolls and gender

Back 4

2 1/2- 3 1/2
2 dolls- boy and girl
-asked kids stereotypic quetsions like: which doll gets in fights? which doll cooks?
-Results: even youngest kids showed gender stereotypes

Front 5

STUDY: following gender stereotypes

Back 5

kids are asked about series of ppl but in some cases "characters" are given specific gender
-some follow the gender stereotype and some do not
-then they asked kids to make predictions about their behavior in diff. gender stereotype situations
-kids think ppl will follow stereotype (kids in elementary school tend to respond more like adults)

Front 6

Preschoolers: gender stereotype beliefs

Back 6

•Preschoolers’ gender stereotypes tend to be rigid
–Don’t usually realize that characteristics associated with gender (e.g., activities, appearance) don’t determine whether one is male or female
•May be one reason they treat gender stereotypes as “rules”

Front 7

elementary school: gender stereotype beliefs

Back 7

•By elementary school, children’s gender stereotypes are more flexible
–Understand that stereotypes are not “rules”
–However, older children do not necessarily approve of “cross-gender” behavior, especially for boys
-Girls= more tolerant

Front 8

Development of Gender-Typed Behavior

Back 8

•By approximately 2 years, many children begin to show gender-typed toy preferences
•Gender-typed toy preferences become stronger during the preschool years for most children
-Society more likely to respond neg. when boys break gender typed beh.
--in middle school kids know gender stereotype but begin to learn gender stereotyped psychological traits and begin to get more flexible in thinking about gender roles
--behavior (esp. boys) becomes even more gender-tyoed and they segregate even more from opp. gender

Front 9

Gender segregation: age

Back 9

•Gender segregation develops during the preschool years (3-5) (across a variety of cultures)
–Tendency to associate with same-gender peers and avoid other-gender peers
•Increases steadily until about age 6 and then remains STABLE (doesn't end) throughout childhood (until puberty)
-Kids initiate gender segregation themselves

Front 10

Biological Influences on Gender-Typed Behavior
(Hormonal Influences)

Back 10

•Organizational influences:
–Occur when sex-linked hormones (hormones that occur at higher levels in one sex) affect brain organization during prenatal development or at puberty
•Androgens: A class of hormones that normally occur at higher levels in males than in females
–Ex: testosterone

Front 11

Biological Influences on Gender-Typed Behavior: Animal Research

Back 11

•Experimental animal research indicates that prenatal or neonatal exposure to androgens:
–Increases male-typical “rough” play in non-human primates and rodents
–Increases aggression, activity level, and learning of complex mazes in rodents
-non-human species and typically EXPERIMENTAL: give/not give preggo animals androgen exposure
-Androgen exposure CAUSES these changes but not clear if generalized to other species

Front 12

•Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)

Back 12

–Disorder in which a fetus is exposed to high levels of androgens during the prenatal period
–Compared to girls without CAH, girls with CAH (CORRELATIONAL)
•Prefer physically active play, such as rough-and-tumble play, to less active play
•Show preferences for masculine-typed toys
•Show somewhat better spatial skills
-girls w/ CAH show male like genitalia
-hormone therapy= treatment

Front 13

Environmental Influences: Social Learning Theory
1. Modeling
2. Enactive Experience

Back 13

-environmental influences= focus of theory
•Social Learning Theory (Bussey & Bandura)
-Learning occurs through
1) Modeling: Children learn “typical” appearance, activities, and occupations for each gender by watching male and female models (in “real life” and in books and other media)
2) Enactive experience
–Learning about gender through experiencing the reactions one’s behavior evokes in others
»Ex: girls and boys are more likely to get positive reactions for behaviors that are gender-stereotypical and more likely to get negative reactions for behaviors that are counter-stereotypical

Front 14

Environmental Influences: Social Learning Theory
3. Tuition
-motivations

Back 14

•Tuition
–Learning about gender through direct teaching
»Ex: father showing son how to throw baseball; mother showing daughter how to change a baby’s diaper
–Children’s motivation to engage in gender-typed behaviors will depend on the incentives or disincentives associated with the behaviors
–Exs: mother praises daughter for helping to prepare dinner (direct); boy observes another boy getting teased for playing with a doll (indirect)

Front 15

Social Learning Theory: Parental Behavior

Back 15

•Parents are more likely to respond positively when children engage in “gender-appropriate” play and more negatively when children engage in “cross-gender” play
-Especially for boys

Front 16

Parent-Child Conversations

Back 16

•Parents talk more to girls than to boys
•Parents use gender-essentialist statements
–Statements about the behavior of males and females that imply that the behavior applies to all members of the gender and always will
•Exs: “Boys play football”; “Girls take ballet”
•In contexts involving science, parents are more likely to engage in explanations and use technical vocabulary with boys than with girls
•Ex: “When you turn that fast, it makes more electricity” versus “Turn that handle”

Front 17

STUDY: Parent-Child Conversations

Back 17

Kids 1-8 and natural observation (kids museum)
-looked @ how parents talked to each gender
1) Explanations: “When you turn that fast, it makes more electricity”
2) Directives: “Turn that handle”
-Results: parents 3x more likely to give explanation to boys than girls

Front 18

CAH Study (Pasterski 2005):
4 groups of children
age range for sample
procedure (#of play sessions, ppl involved, types of toys)
parent response

Back 18

-4 groups: girls w/CAH, unaffected sister, Boys w/CAH, unaffected brothers
-Kids ages 3-10 yrs old
-Participants were videotaped in two or three toy
play sessions
-Methods: First, each child played alone for 8 min, then with his or her mother or father for 8 min, and then with his or her other parent (when available) for 8 min. Each
toy play session involved the same female-preferred,
male-preferred, and neutral toys.
-Parental responses were classified as positive, negative, or neutral

Front 19

CAH Toy Choices: Pasterski et al. (2005)

Back 19

•Comparison of toy choices in girls and boys with CAH and their siblings (without CAH)
–Girls with CAH played with “boys’ toys” more and “girls’ toys” less than their unaffected sisters
–No differences between boys with CAH and their unaffected brothers

Front 20

Parental Behavior

Back 20

•Parental Behavior
–Parents gave more negative responses to their unaffected sons than to their unaffected daughters for play with “girls’ toys”
–Parents gave more positive responses to daughters with CAH than to unaffected daughters for play with “girls’ toys”

Front 21

Parental Behavior and Children’s Toy Choices

Back 21

•Parental Behavior and Children’s Toy Choices
–For unaffected children, parents’ positive and negative responses to children’s toy choices were related to children’s play behavior
•Positive responses to children’s play with certain toys related to more play with those toys (and vice versa for negative responses)
–For children with CAH, parental behavior was not related to children’s toy choices

Front 22

Cognitive Developmental Theory (Kohlberg) -STAGE 1

Back 22

Cognitive Developmental Theory (Kohlberg)
•Three Stages: Basic gender identity, gender stability, gender consistency
1) Basic Gender Identity:
•Understanding that one is a member of one gender category or the other and the ability to label themselves as “girls” or “boys” (Emerges around 2.5 years)
-but they DONT understand:
1) gender is stable over time
2) gender is consistent across situations

Front 23

Cognitive Developmental Theory (Kohlberg) -STAGE 2&3

Back 23

–Gender Stability
•Understanding that gender is stable over time
–Emerges around 3 or 4 years
–Gender Constancy/Consistency
•Understanding that gender is constant/consistent across situations regardless of appearance or activities
–Emerges around 5 to 7 years

Front 24

Kholberg theory results/ incorrect and Cognitive theories commonalities

Back 24

•Kohlberg: Once children have achieved gender constancy, they are motivated to conform to gender roles (engage in gender-typed behavior)
–Why is this incorrect? B/c kids show gender type beh. way before "final stage" (5-7yr)
-cognitive theories say that: kids gender type behavior is a representation of how they understand gender and what it means

Front 25

Gender Schema Theory

Back 25

•Children construct gender schemas: Organized mental representations incorporating information about gender
•Include children’s own experiences, observations, and information conveyed by others, including gender stereotypes
•Schemas are dynamic—change as children acquire additional information
•Once children achieve basic gender identity, they are motivated to engage in gender-typed behavior
–Motivated to prefer, pay attention to, and remember information about others of their gender
•Children use gender schemas to guide their behavior and process information

Front 26

Gender Schema Theory: Evidence-Martin et al. (1995)
STUDY 3: Methods

Back 26

--2 experimenters bring kid in and one experimenter leaves room. the other proceed to tell the child (in random order) the "sex-labeled" toys (male, female, or neutral toys)
--The experimenter labeled it by describing who likes to
play with it most (boys, girls, or no label). then told them the name of the toy (had child repeat name) and showed them how it was used
-child then had 30 sec to inspect the toy (completing all toys), the child was asked to indicate how much they liked the toy, how much they thought girls would like it, and how much they thought boys would like it
-they were then asked what Experimenter 1 had said about who liked each of the toys; boys, girls, or she did not say; children were then asked to place the toy in the appropriate box.

Front 27

Gender Schema Theory: Evidence-Martin et al. (1995)
STUDY 3

Back 27

–Children used gender labels given to toys to guide their behavior
•Ex: If a toy was labeled as a “boy” toy, girls reported that they were less interested in it and that other girls would also be less interested in it than if the toy was labeled as a “girl” toy (and vice versa for boys)
–True even if the toy was very attractive

Front 28

Gender Stereotype and Memory

Back 28

•Children show biases in their memory for information about gender
–More likely to accurately remember information that is consistent with gender stereotypes
–More likely to forget or distort information that is inconsistent with gender stereotypes

Front 29

Gender Myths: Maccoby and Jacklin

Back 29

-well ingrained cog. schemas we use to identify and sometimes distort beh. of men and women
-STUDY: college kids look watch baby play w/ jack in the box. Told the baby named DANA on DANIEL- college kids report beh. stereotypic w/ presumed sex
-FALSE myths: 1) girls more social 2) girls more suggestible 3) boys better at higher level thinking 4) boys more analytical 5) girls lack achievement motivation

Front 30

Cultural myths contribute to sex differences in ability?
-self fulfilling prophecy
-Home influences
-Scholastic influences

Back 30

-By first grade kids already think boys better at math
--phenomenon where ppl cause others to act in accordance w/ the expectations they have about others
1) Parents expect sons to outperform their daughters in math
2) sons successes in math to ABILITY and daughter to HARD WORK
3) children begin to internalize their parents views= boys feel self confident and girls underestimate their abilities
4) girls become less interested in math and avoid career fields w/ math
--girls less likely to be exceptional in any subject so the generalize
--stereotype is getting better

Front 31

Subcultural Variations in Gender typing

Back 31

1) middle class adolescents hold more flexible stereo. than low income--these kids are more educated and understanding
2) black kids less stereotyped views of women than whites-- kids share more fam. responsibilities and community standard of gender equality also men =ly as likely to take care of their kids while single moms work

Front 32

Achievement Motivation and Attributions

Back 32

•Achievement Motivation: The tendency to persist at challenging tasks
–In infants and young children, typically referred to as mastery motivation
•Attributions: Common, everyday explanations for the causes of behavior
–Ex: failure on a task can be attributed to lack of ability or to insufficient effort

Front 33

Normative Development of Achievement Motivation

Back 33

•Around age 3, children begin making attributions about their successes and failures
•Preschoolers tend to be “learning optimists”
–Rate their own ability very high
–Underestimate task difficulty
–Expect to be successful even when they have failed in the past

Front 34

Individual Differences in Achievement Motivation

Back 34

•Although as a group preschoolers tend to be high in achievement motivation, by age 4 or 5 some children give up easily when faced with a challenge . . .
–Individual differences in achievement motivation . . .

Front 35

Factors Related to Individual Differences in Achievement Motivation:
Dweck’s Model of Coping/Attributional Styles

Back 35

1) Mastery-oriented Style:
•Possess an incremental view of ability
–Ability can be increased through effort
•When these children encounter failure, they generally attribute the failure to factors that can be changed (e.g., effort, practice)
2) Learned Helpless Style:
•Possess an entity view of ability
–Ability is fixed and cannot be improved by trying hard (effort)
•When these children fail, they tend to attribute the failure to their own lack of ability (i.e., not being smart)

Front 36

Children’s coping styles are related to their learning goals

Back 36

–Mastery-oriented style is positively related to learning goals
•Learning goal: Goal is to increase one’s ability through effort
–Learned helpless style is positively related to performance goals
•Performance goal: Goal is to obtain positive and avoid negative evaluations of one’s ability

Front 37

How Might Different Coping/Attributional Styles Develop?
-2 Types of Feedback

Back 37

•The type of praise and criticism (in achievement situations) provided by adults may affect the development of children’s (esp. kindergarten) coping styles

1) Person/Trait Related Feedback 2) Process Feedback

Front 38

Different Types of Feedback: Person/Trait related

Back 38

1) Person- (or Trait-related) Feedback:
•Involves evaluating the child as a whole or the child’s traits/characteristics
–Ex: “You’re a good boy/girl” , “I’m very proud of you”, “You’re really good at this” (praise)
–“You’re a bad boy/girl”, “I’m very disappointed in you”, “You’re not very good at this” (criticism)

--Kids w/ person feedback are more likely for learned helplessness

Front 39

Different Types of Feedback: Process

Back 39

2) Process Feedback
•Involves evaluating the child’s efforts or strategies
–Exs: “You must have tried really hard”, “You found a good way to do it” (praise)
–“You could try harder next time”; “Maybe you could think of another way to do it” (criticism)

Front 40

Study 1: Person VS. Process CRITICISM (Kamins&Dweck)
-Participant ages
-Methods: type of story told
-types of feedback
-Results

Back 40

-- 5yrs old (almost 6)
--Each participant role-played four scenarios, with dolls and props, in which he or she worked on a task, made an error in the process, and then received feedback from the teacher.
--The Block Story OR The Lego House Story
--Person criticism: the teacher doll delivered general disapproval, "I'm very disappointed in you" after mistake.
--Process criticism: focus of the feedback was on
the strategy used ("The blocks are all crooked and in one big mess")
--RESULTS: person criticism was more harsh for kids and made them score themselves lower

Front 41

Study 1&2: PersonVS.Process Criticism/praise (Kamins&Dweck):
5 Dependent Measures

Back 41

1) Product rating. Children were asked to rate their product made in the test scenario on a scale ranging from 0 (worst) to 5 (best)
2) Self-assessments. Children were asked four questions designed to assess the extent to which they considered their performance on the test task to reflect negatively on their traits and abilities (They were asked whether they felt they were good/not good at making the product, like a good/not good person, nice/not nice, or smart/not smart
3) Affect: Children asked to rate their feelings at the end of the test scenario from 0 (sad face) to 5 (happy face)
4) Persistence: 2 measures- A) determine whether children were interested in pursuing the activity to a successful conclusion ("Would you like to do the Lego house again or something else instead?") B) had the children hold up the dolls and then we asked "What happens now? " giving them the opportunity to construct an ending (solution) to examine whether they would persist
5) General beliefs about badness: To judge whether children considered badness (negative behaviors) to be stable

Front 42

Person VS. Process Praise/Criticism (Kamins&Dweck)
Study 2:
-Participant ages
-Methods
-types of feedback

Back 42

-- 5yrs old (almost 6)
-- In this study, each participant role-played four success scenarios in which the child worked on a task for the teacher and then received one of six types of praise feedback from the teacher.
--The Puzzle Story
--Person praise: I'm very proud of you" "You're a good girl" "You're really good at this")
--Process praise: "You must have tried really hard"
"You found a good way to do it, can you think of other ways that may also work?"

Front 43

What is Required for Moral Behavior?

Back 43

•To act morally, children must have
–An understanding of “right” and “wrong”
–A conscience (superego: emotional component of morality)
•Concern about acting in a moral manner and feeling guilt when one does not

Front 44

Early Moral Judgment/Reasoning: Piaget’s Theory

Back 44

•Observed children playing games (issues related to rules, fairness)--asked open ended ?'s (EX. whose the boss?)
•Also used clinical interviews to assess children’s thinking about moral issues-- 2 kids john and henry: accidentally break cups- kids say john worse because they don't take into account intentions

Front 45

Piaget’s Early Moral Judgment/Reasoning: 2 stages

Back 45

•Proposed two stages in children’s moral development (transitional period in between):
•Pre-Phase called "Premoral Period"--first 5 years of life kids have little awareness/respect for social rules
1) Stage of moral reasoning (Heteronomous Morality): rules are set by parents/ authority figures and are sacred and unalterable (5-10yrs)
2) Stage of Moral Relativism (Autonomous Morality): kids realize social rules are flexible and can be challenged or even changed w/ consent from ppl that govern and feel rules can be violated in service to human needs (10-11)

Front 46

Stage of Morality of Constraint

Back 46

–Children younger than 7 or 8 years old are typically in this stage of moral reasoning
–Rules or laws made by authority figures (adults) are “sacred”
•Rules/laws are always fair
•Doing the “right” thing means following the rules/laws
–Actions are judged by their consequences, not by the individual’s intentions/motives
•Ex: Child who broke more dishes is naughtier, even though it was accidental

Front 47

Later Research (post-Piaget) on Intentions

Back 47

•In some cases, young children (3-year-olds) can take into account a person’s intentions in judging an act as “right” or “wrong”
-Told kids stories: good intention=good outcome, good intention=bad outcome, and vice versa
–Piaget underestimated young children’s ability to judge an action based on the individual’s intentions (rather than the consequences)

Front 48

Understanding of Rules: 2 types

Back 48

•Young children don’t treat all rules the same way
–Moral rules: Involve issues of right and wrong, fairness, and justice
•Exs: stealing from another person; physically hurting another person
–Social-conventional rules: Involve customs or regulations intended to ensure social organization (e.g., forms of greeting, table manners)
•Exs: addressing an authority figure as “Sir”; saying “please” and “thank you”

Front 49

Understanding of Rules: Ages 3 and 4
-Later Research (post-Piaget)

Back 49

•By age 3, children generally believe that moral violations are more wrong than social-conventional violations
–Ex: hitting another child or stealing another child’s possessions is worse than not saying “please” when asking for something
•By age 4, children generally believe that moral violations are wrong even if adults do not say that they are wrong
–Not true for social-conventional violations
•Piaget underestimated young children’s ability to reason about different kinds of rules

Front 50

What is Conscience?

Back 50

•Conscience:
–An internal regulatory mechanism that increases the individual’s ability to conform with standards of conduct accepted in his/her culture
•Desire to comply with rules/standards
•Feelings of guilt when one violates standards
–In young children, reflects primarily parental standards/values

Front 51

Methods of Measuring Conscience in Young Children

Back 51

•Set up a situation in which a child believes that he/she has broken a rule or violated a standard and observe his/her reactions
–Ex: broken doll; damaged shirt; spilled juice
•Set up a situation in which a child is tempted to violate a rule or standard and observe his/her behavior
–Exs: child asked to complete a task (e.g., clean up); child told not to do something (e.g., play with an attractive toy); adult encourages a child to break a rule; child is tempted to cheat in order to win a game (child left alone)

Front 52

Early Development of Conscience

Back 52

•By age 2, children start to show an appreciation of rules/standards and show signs of distress when they violate a rule/standard
–Exs: will sometimes try to “correct” violations (e.g., breaking a toy, spilling juice, damaging a shirt); will sometimes show negative emotion when they violate a rule/standard
•As children get older, they show increasing evidence of conscience (also known as internalization)

Front 53

2 Individual Differences in Conscience Development

Back 53

•(1) The desire to comply with rules and (2) the tendency to experience guilt after doing something “wrong” varies across young children

Front 54

Factors Related to Individual Differences in Conscience Development

Back 54

–Quality of parent-child relationships
•Parent-child relationships characterized by mutual warmth/affection and mutual responsiveness
–Both partners express pleasure/happiness, mutual affection, and humor; displays of negative affect are infrequent and do not last long
–Willing/eager to cooperate with one another; conflicts are quickly resolved and rarely escalate

Front 55

Factors Related to Individual Differences in Conscience Development: Outcomes

Back 55

•This type of parent-child relationship is positively related to measures of conscience/internalization in young children
–Possible Explanation: When parents are positive and responsive, children may be more willing/eager to internalize their parents’ values than if parents are negative and/or unresponsive

Front 56

Individualistic vs collectivistic

Back 56

--Individualistic: US, Canada, Western Europe- promote self reliance, individual assertion, and freedom to pursue personal (and usually highly creative) objectives
--collectivistic: Africa, Asia, Latin America- promotion of maintaining social harmony, pursuing goals that are considered (by society) honorable, and maximize social welfare

Front 57

Cross Cultural Study (individualistic vs collectivistic)

Back 57

--Challenged people to make correct judgements about lines (which line is the closest to the control line) when social norms were available (telling them that their group usually choose A even tho it obvious wrong answer)
--Eskimos (individualistic) and Temne (collectivistic)
--Temne conformed and Eskimos did not

Front 58

Individualistic vs collectivistic: mixed-motive tasks and achievement

Back 58

mixed-motive tasks: pit self-interest against that of the group
--collectivistic societies out preform individualistic
--individualistic: achievement is measured by individual accomplishment and evidence of personal merit
--collectivistic: achievement implies that one must suppress individualism and pull together w/others to work for greater good of the group

Front 59

Ethnic Variation in Achievement: grades, early hypothesis

Back 59

--Blacks, Native amer. and latinos earn poorer grades and lower SAT scores than whites even tho their parents value EDU more than white parents do
--asian american outperform whites in academics
--Early hypothesis: differences in intelligence or social class effect

Front 60

Ethnic Variation in Achievement: 4 factors affecting academic performance

Back 60

1) Socioeconomic status is a factor associated w/ academic performance
2) subtle subcultural differences in parenting
3) diff. across races in peer endorsement of academics
4) neg. influence of social stereotypes on academic performance

Front 61

Social class differences in achievement:
-socioeconomic status
-parenting

Back 61

--Socioeconomic status (social class standing): ones position w/in society that is stratified according to status and power
--Western societies usually classify it according to: income, occupational prestige, and education
--Poverty families: worse behavior in kids and greater likelihood of being employed in low status occupation
--high socio. families may have "intellectual advantage"
--economic hardship leads to psych distress= parents are edgy and irritable = not being sensitive to kids & not being highly involved in learning activites
--parents may not have knowledge or money = can't help kids w/ school work or provide educational toys/stimuli

Front 62

Social class differences in achievement:
community

Back 62

--poverty striken neighborhoods= no community resources for education (libraries, daycare, etc.)
--when low income parents find want to stimulate kids 2 things happen:
1) preform well academically and show as much intrinsic interest as high class children do
2) later aspire to higher status jobs

Front 63

Social class differences in achievement:
Compensatory interventions

Back 63

--compensatory interventions: special education programs designed to further cognitive growth and scholastic achievement of disadvantaged kids
--rarely produced permanent IQ boosts but did create positive attitudes towards school, help them pass their grade, and helped graduate high school
--two-generation interventions: interventions w/ the goals of 1) stimulating kids intellectual development and school readiness thru preschool and education 2) assisting parents to gain parenting skills and move out of poverty

Front 64

Home Environment and Achievement: HOME inventory
-study
- INTRINSIC ORIENTATION

Back 64

--HOME inventory: a measure of intellectual stimulation provided by a child's home envio.
--True across all ethnicities and social classes
--consists of 45 yes (stimulating) or No (unstimulating) ?'s
--50 12mon old babies w/ stimulating (high HOME score) or unstimulating (low HOME score)
--5-9 yrs later they looked at scholastic achievement
--Results: 2 out of 3 kid from high scoring homes did well academically while 70% of low scoring homes did poorly
--promoted INTRINSIC ORIENTATION: a strong willingness to seek out and master challenges to satisfy personal needs for competence or mastery

Front 65

Child Rearing and achievement:
Independence training
Process praise
achievement training

Back 65

-Independence training: encouraging kids to become self-reliant by accomplishing goals w/out assistance
-Process praise: praising effortful persistance
-achievement training: encouraging kids to do things well- thats is, to meet or exceed high (but attainable) standards as they strive to accomplish various objects
-Parent scaffolding: helping kids w/ tasks in ways that do not greatly interfere

Front 66

Child Rearing and achievement:
Parent influence on Achievement Motivation (high&low)
3 traits of Authoritative parenting style

Back 66

--kids w/ high AM have paents who praise their success and are not overly critical of their failures
--kids w/ low AM have parents that are slow to acknowledge their successes (or do so in a "matter of fact" way) and are inclined to criticize/punish failures
--parents w/ kids high in AM have authoritative parenting style:
1) they are warm, accepting, and quick to praise accomplishments
2) they provide noninvasive help and control by setting reasonable standards and monitoring kids progress to ensure kids succeed
3) they allow kid independence or autonomy, allowing kids to have a say in deciding how to master challenges

Front 67

Child Rearing and achievement: family environmental influence or genetics?
-school readiness

Back 67

--more environment but may have underly genetic influence
--school readiness: kids basic knowledge of letters, numbers, shapes, pre-reading, and writing skills
--largest contributor to school reediness was shared environmental influence

Front 68

Parental Expectations and Achievement: effect on kids

Back 68

--parents expect a child to preform in a particular achievement domain BASED ON earlier performance
--parents then develop clear impression of their childs competencies
--parents perceptions of their kids competencies influence kids perceptions of their OWN competence
--kids unconsciously align their one self-concept of ability to be more like their parents
--these expectations influence how a parent socializes their kids and create a SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY

Front 69

Parental Expectations and Achievement: parental theories of intelligence

Back 69

--parents OWN theory of intelligence influences kids
--ENTITY theorists may subtly communicate that the childs incompetence is FIXED or UNCHANGEABLE which undermines the kids motivation
--INCREMENTAL theorists are inclined to encourage a kid who seems to lack ability to work harder to improve
--biggest hurdles are convincing adults to follow incremental theory and process praise