Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/63

Click to flip

63 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Entity view of ability
belief that one’s ability is a highly stable trait that is not influenced much by effort or practice
Incremental view of ability:
belief that one’s ability can be improved through increased effort and practice
Weiner’s attribution theory of achievement
-claims that a person’s achievement behavior depends very critically on how he interprets prior success and failures and on whether he thinks he can control these outcomes.
intrinsic achievement
a desire to achieve in order to satisfy one’s personal needs for competence or mastery.
-prefer challenging problems over simpler ones and view themselves highly competent at schoolwork.
extrinsic achievement
a desire to achieve in order to earn external incentives such as grades, prizes, or the approval of others
Stable attributions: following failure
Stable-belief that the cause of an event is unlikely to change in the future
Unstable attributions following failure
Unstable-belief that the cause of an event is unlikely to occur again
Internal attributions following failure
lInternal-a behavior is tied to some individual characteristic or disposition
External attributions following failure
lExternal-something about the situation elicited the behavior or is otherwise responsible
Locus of control
sense of control over life outcomes
Unctontrollable vs controllable outcomes
For an outcome perceived to be controllable, its cause is perceived to apply to many or all life situations
–Specific
For an outcome perceived to be uncontrollable, its cause is perceived to apply to a single specific situation
Learned Helplessness
–Success is due to an unstable cause-luck or high effort
–Failure is attributed to a stable cause-lack of ability
–Entity view of ability-not malleable
–Low achievement expectancies
–Might as well give up-trying harder will not help things
Attribution retraining
Attributions can be changed to improve children’s persistence following failure
What parents can do to help improve their children’s mastery orientation
Personal and inspirational stories
Others’ attitudes and expectancies may (inadvertently) undermine students’ performance
–Learned helplessness
–The gender gap in mathematics
lAge-graded and life transitions may create stress and social disruptions that interfere with achievement
Contributing environmental factors to children’s achievement motivation
–Major changes in or just prior to grade 7
School change
–Movement to a junior high versus staying in a K-8 school
Pubertal change
–Early developers versus average and late developers
Early dating
–Exclusive dating or going steady versus no dating or group dating experience
Geographical mobility
–Moving to a new neighborhood or into a new school off-schedule in Grade 6
Major family disruption
–Death of a parent, divorce, or remarriage versus parental stability
Grade
Gender differences in achievement motivation
lFemales are less likely than males to persist following failure
lFemales are more likely than males to attribute failure to lack of ability (stable)
lFemales are less likely to attribute success to ability (unstable)
Inaccurate gender role stereotypes
Development of Gender Role Stereotypes
–2½-year-olds have some knowledge of gender stereotypes
–Middle childhood—very rigid boundaries
–By age 11, children’s stereotyping rivals that of adults
–Gender intensification in early adolescence–to succeed in the dating scene
Development of Gender Identity
–By age 2½-3, almost all children can accurately label themselves as either boys or girls
–Children do not see sex as an unchanging attribute until somewhere between ages 5 and 7
Developmental trends in gender stereotyping
Gender and Toy Preference
–Boys age 14-22 months already prefer trucks and cars to other objects
–18-24-month-old toddlers often refuse to play with cross-sex toys
Gender segregation reliably established by age 2-3
–Maccobysuggests that girls and boys quickly become incompatible in their play styles
–Young boys strictly enforce gender boundaries and sex typing; girls have more latitude
Greater negative connotation to referring to a boy as a ―sissy‖ as opposed to calling a girl a ―tomboy.‖ ―Sissy‖ is tantamount to being a ―failed male‖
Gender roles standards
Female role of childbearer and primary caregiver
–Expressiverole--kind, nurturant, cooperative, and sensitive to the needs of others
Male role of providing for and protection of family
Corumination
: “extensively discussing and revisiting problems, speculating about problems, and focusing on negative feelings” (Rose, 2002; p. 1830).
–Essentially, self-disclosure with a negative focus
lRelated to high-quality friendships but also higher levels of depression and anxiety
lGirls engage in co-rumination more than boys, and the gender difference widens into adolescence (as the “Boy Code” strengthens?)
–self-disclosure may be a different process for boys
Hostile Reactive
–Smacking someone who has just insulted you
Major goal is to hurt or harm another
Commonly associated with frustration and other negativeemotions
Proactive/instrumental
–Pushing someone aside so that you can get to the water fountain first
–Bullying for social position
Harm is a means to a nonaggressive end
Not reactive or emotional but deliberate or planned
Reactive Aggressors
–Expectancy: ―Others are hostile to me‖
When provoked, attend to cues consistent with this expectancy
Attribute hostile intent to the provocateur
–HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS
Become angry and quickly retaliate aggressively
Peers and teachers react negatively, further reinforcing the original expectancy
Proactive Aggressors
–Expectancy: ―Aggression is the best strategy to accomplish my goals‖
When provoked, formulate an instrumental goal and coolly and consciously decide that aggression will best assist in achieving aims
How aggressive vs. nonaggressive kids view rewards of aggressive behavior
Compared to their nonaggressive peers, aggressive children are:
–More confident that aggression will yield tangible rewards
–More certain that aggression will be easy for them and successful at terminating others’ noxious behavior
–More inclined to believe that aggression will enhance their self-esteem and will not cause their victims any permanent harm
Aggressive Instinct Theories
(Freud, Lorenz)
Limited explanatory value
–Aggressive responses presumed to be instinctive can be modified substantially or eliminated through social learning
Learning Theories of aggression
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis(Dollard, Berkowitz)
–Aggression need not be linked to frustration
–Aggressive cues can vary widely by individual—depending on cognitive interpretation
Social-Learning Theory(Bandura) aggression
Slanted toward explaining instrumental aggression—reinforcement for aggression use
Proactive/instrumental
Harm is a means to a nonaggressive end. Not reactive or emotional but deliberate or planned. ex: pushing someone aside so that you can get to the water fountain first. Bully for social position
Physical aggression:
Behaviors which harm others through physical damage or the threat of such damage. ex: hitting, kicking, slapping...
relational aggression:
Harming others through purposeful manipulation and damage to their relationships with others. ex: spreading rumors or gossiping
hostile/reactive aggression
Major goal is to hurt or harm another. commonly associated with frustration and other negative emotions ex: smacking someone who has just insulted you.
Developmental trends in aggressive behavior
Relationally aggressive children appear likely to remainrelationally aggressive over time
Relationally aggressive children are at riskfor:
–peer rejection
–loneliness & depression
–delinquency
–borderline personality disorder
Relational aggression is difficult to deal with and has long-lasting negative consequences (there is a need for research and intervention, especially with girls!)

Physically aggressive children are likely to become aggressive adolescents and adults (individual differences in physical aggression are relatively stableover long periods of time)
Physically aggressive children are at riskfor
–peer rejection
–juvenile delinquency
–adult criminality
–school failure (dropping out)
–adolescent pregnancy
A vast amount of research and interventionstudies have been dedicated to understanding physical aggression, and boyshave usually been the focus
Gender differences in aggression
-Boys are usually more physically aggressive and girls are more relationally aggressive.
-Physically aggressive behaviors are consistent with the goals important to boys within the peer group context: physical dominance, instrumentality, maintenance of hierarchies
-Relationally aggressive behaviors are consistent with the relational goals of girls: establishing close, intimate connections with others, maintaining close, intimate connections with others
Relationally aggressive behaviors are consistent with the relational goals of girls:
–establishing close, intimate connections with others
–maintaining close, intimate connections with others
Girls are socialized in a manner consistent with these behaviors:
–to notbe physically aggressive
–Rumors, gossip, and relational exclusion are the most effective in inflicting harm or getting back at someone (disrupts the above goals for others)
Risks related to relational aggression
Parenting
–Coldness and rejection
–Power-assertive discipline
–Erratic or permissive approach to aggression
–An active, tempestuous temperament may tire a parent out, fostering permissiveness
–Lack of monitoring
The case of single mothers
Coercive home environments are breeding grounds for aggression—A family systemproblem
–Constant bickering, threatening, irritating each other
–Negative reinforcement helps maintain coercive interactions
–Mothers of these ―out of control‖ children rarely use social approval—the only way to get attention is to irritate others!
Piaget’s Moral Development theory
Focus on Respect for Rules & Justice
Stages of Morality
–Premoral (through preschool)
–Moral Realism or Heteronomous Morality (ages 5-10)
moral absolutes
Consequences matter more than intent
expiatory punishment
immanent justice
–Moral Relativism or Autonomous Morality (by age 10-11)
Some rules are arbitrary
Conditions sometimes require that one break rules
Intent is a key aspect in judging right or wrong
Reciprocal punishments–tailored to the ―crime‖
Cognitive advances and peers contribute to moral development
Piaget underestimated the moral capabilities of children and the positive influence of good parents
Self-oriented distress
feeling a personal discomfort or distress that may be elicited when we experience the emotions of a istressed other.
Biological Theories
–Are we programmed to be prosocial?
Evolutionary advantage to cooperative social units
Newborns show primitive empathy by crying when they hear other babies cry
If only it was automatic!
Psychoanalytic Theory
–Let your conscience (superego) be your guide
The infant as an id-based, self-serving hedonist
Phallic Stage (3-6 years)
–Identification with same-sex parent
–Internalization--shift from externally controlled actions to conduct that is governed by internal standards and principles, especially if parent is threatening
–Oedipal Morality
–Lack of evidence for the specifics of the theory
Social Learning Theory
–What’s in it for me?
Why would I do something that is costly or punishing to self?
The skeptical view: All prosocial acts have some form of subtle reward or self-gain
Cognitive Theories
–Maturity is the Medium
The child as an increasingly sophisticated moral philosopher—a rational approach
How parents can best teach altruism and prosocial behavior to children
Authoritative child-rearing
–Inductive reasoning is key
–Coercive tactics and love withdrawal fail to promote moral growth
Engagement in tasks that benefit the family welfare
–Collectivist orientation; the value of working for a common goal
Warm verbal approval (not material rewards) and encouragement (altruistic exhortations) for prosocial behavior
Practice what you preach
–Prosocial activists
Basic elements of each of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
4Kohlberg’s Theory of Morality
Invariant stages of morality
–Preconventional Morality: Morality is self-serving
–Conventional Morality: Winning approval or maintaining social order
–Postconventional Morality: Overarching principles of justice
Social experience drives moral development
–Transactive interactions and advanced education
Problems with the theory
–Few people reach the final stage
–Too much focus on moral reasoning
–Cultural Bias
–Secular Bias
–Gender Bias
Carol Gilligan’s theory of sex-based moral orientations
Rest’s 4 component model of morality
Four major psychological processes are at work when a person behaves morally:
–Interpretation
–Judgment
–Giving priority to moral values
–Moral perseverance
induction
Directs in a rational issue-oriented manner
Encourages verbal give and take
Shares with the child the reasoning behind parental policy, and solicits the child's objections when the child refuses to conform
“Reflection enhancing messages”
Authoritarian (Coercive)
–Very demanding and directive but not responsive
Punitive, forceful measures (coercion) to curb self-will and demand obedience
Keeps the child in a subordinate role
Restricts child autonomy
Does not encourage verbal give-and-take (induction)
Permissive
(Indulgent)
–More responsive than demanding
Affirming and accepting of child’s impulses and actions (does not require mature behavior)
Aims to free the child from restraint (allows considerable self-regulation)
Exerts lax or inconsistent control when the child misbehaves (avoids confrontation)
Authoritative
–Induction
Directs in a rational issue-oriented manner
Encourages verbal give and take
Shares with the child the reasoning behind parental policy, and solicits the child's objections when the child refuses to conform
“Reflection enhancing messages”
–Exerts firm control when the young child disobeys, but does not hem the child in with restrictions
–Love, Limits, & Latitude!
Uninvolved
Not warm and doesn’t set limits. Just doesn’t care
Children outcomes from parenting styles
Authoritative parenting
–Children tend to do very well in all aspects of life: socially mature, high self-esteem, responsible, more prosocial, high academic achievement, very little problem behavior
Authoritarian parenting
–Children tend to perform moderately well at school and avoid problem behavior, but poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression
Permissive parenting
–Children are more likely to be involved in problem behavior (impulse control problems, difficulty respecting others, coping with frustration), perform less well in school (little self-discipline), though they do not tend to have social skill, self-esteem, or depression difficulties
Uninvolved parenting
–Children perform most poorly in all domains
LDS perspectives on parenting styles
Control and compulsion are inconsistent with God’s nature and plan, as well as His style of caring for all of His spirit children
Child rearing is individualistic—every child is unique—A matter of prayerful discernment
You may not be entirely consistent, but where you find your greatest consistency matters a lot!
“You have not failed as long as you have tried”
Statistics regarding the state of the family today
-ecreased childbearing, many childless by choice
–“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”
More women are employed(63% w/child under 6)
–“Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”
–“Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children. . .”

More divorce (up to 60% of couples)
–“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children . . . Husbands and wives–mothers and fathers–will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.”
–“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

More single parent families (60% of children, usually never married or divorced)
–“. . . God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
–“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony. .

More children living in poverty (directly tied to single parenting)
–“Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs . . . Husbands and wives–mothers and fathers–will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.”
More remarriage, resulting in more blended or reconstituted families
–“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

Relatively speaking, the traditional nuclear family is an increasingly rare phenomenon
–Family disintegration OR simply a matter of increasing family diversity?
–“. . . we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Two major dimensions of parenting
Respsiveness/warmth: Amount of support and affection that a parent displays.
Control/demandingness: refers to the amount of regulation or supervision parents undertake with children
Direct vs. indirect effects of family systems
Indirect:
–Parental effects wherein the parent’s goal is not explicitly to modify the child’s relationships with peers
Direct:
–Parental effects which directly determine the sheer amount of contact a child has with peers
Parents
Attachment and peer relations
Friendship and peer social status are unique predictors of children’s psychosocial adjustment
Friendships may ameliorate the effects of peer rejection
Peers may enhance or diminish children’s sociability
Peers can provide security, social support, and lessons in conflict resolution
Parents as managers
Managers: Facilitating peer contacts by acting as designersand mediators:
–Enrolling children in organized play groups or activities
–Chauffeuring children from one place to another
–Getting together with their friends so their children can play together
–Coaching children in how to initiate and maintain peer contacts
Parents as eucators
Educators: Supervising
–Interactive interventions (Direct)
Proactively regulating or scaffolding social interactions
Most appropriate for infants and toddlers
–Indirect Interventions
Observing and reacting minimally to events in children’s play
Ladd & Golter study
–Monitoring
Outside of direct parental involvement
Advising/Consulting
–Decontextualized discussions
Outside of the peer context
Proactive or reactive
The controversy over ethnicity and parenting styles (class discussion)
Parenting seems to vary by culture or subculture, depending on the demands of the culture or environment
–Authoritarian parenting in Asian and African American families reportedly does not promote negative child outcomes (in contrast with European-American families)
Hart’s four reasons for child misbehavior
Stage of growth issue
–Need to hang on and realize that it goes with the territory
Something is going awry in the present environment
–Often have to dig for it
–Seek to change the environment or the child’s perceptions, if appropriate
Unfulfilled needs
–Identify the need and work to fulfill it
The child doesn’t know any better
–An opportunity to teach and correct
–Attack the problem, not the child
Results of Nelson & Crick (1999)
prosocial children are significantly more likely to hold a "benign attributional bias”
prosocial children aresignificantly less likely to report feeling angry or upset by hypothetical altercations with peers
prosocial children are significantly more likely to favor a relational goal over an instrumental goal
prosocial children evaluate aggressive responses more negatively and prosocial responses more positively
Results of Nelson, Mitchell, & Yang (2008
Hostile attribution and peer reported aggression, do parents intent attributions affect childrens intent attributions. boys’ instrumental intent attributions
were related to physical aggression. Children’s relational
intent attributions, however, were not associated with
relational aggression. Contrary to expectations, most children
responded with hostile intent attributions for relational
provocations. Finally, in regard to parent–child connections,
maternal intent attributions correlated with children’s
intent attributions whereas paternal intent attributions
corresponded with children’s relational aggression
children distinguish between
relational and instrumental provocation situations
Parents, however, did not appear to distinguish between
relational and instrumental scenarios
Physical aggression was
associated with instrumental intent attributions, but for
boys only
boys tend to be more
physically aggressive than girls
Results of Nelson, Hart, Yang, Olsen, & Jin (2006)
combined
parenting effects were slightly more prevalent than differential effects in predicting aggression. Furthermore,
physical coercion was predictive of aggression in boys whereas psychological control was primarily associated
with aggression in girls
4 erroneous views that parents don't matter
1. Married heterosexual
parents (mothers and fathers)
are not essential for children.
2. Fathers and mothers don’t
make unique contributions to
children’s development.
3. There is no evidence that parenting is
reflected in child behavior outside of the
home.
4. Genetics and peers matter, not parents.
Besides the intuitive falseness of these
views, research shows that parents do
matter in the lives of children and
adolescents.