PSYC1030 Edx wk 7 - Lecture notes 7 PDF

Preview

Summary

EdX notes...

Description

Psyc1030 Edx Week 7 Building blocks of social development Newborn Preferences - Newborns are born with preferences - Learn what’s important – pay attention to faces - Goren and colleagues, 1975:  Average of 9 mins after birth newborns prefer things that look like faces - Prefer human speech to artificial sounds and specifically their maternal language and motherese Sensitivity to emotional cues - Field and colleagues, 1982  36-hour old infants could differentiate positive from negative emotions and positive and negative expressions - Around 5 months old can differentiate sounds and prefer to hear the right sound that matches the expression (happy and laughing) - Better at this with people they know Responding to emotions - Social smile at 3 months (smile in response to social cues) - By 6 months they’re particularly good at social smiling to people they know - Do it much more in response to people they know - Contagious crying: when one infant cries another does too – around 3 to 6 months – argued to be due to:  Empathy – Hoffman and simner  Hyper-reactive – Davidov, zahn-waxle, roth-hanania and knafo (just freaking out because others are - Edward tronick, 1978  Babies interacting with their mother through emotional response  Three phases: play session mother and child normal, play session mother facial expression blank (still face), mother changes expression back to happy  Infants wig out in phase two because they realise that in a social interaction, it's really about communicating both ways.  The infant really tries to regain their mother's attention, her positive behaviours, and her reactions, they aren’t just passive  Third phase infant=happy again, act like it didn’t happen

Increasing social engagement and self-awareness Joint attention and social referencing - 6 to 18 months become increasingly active in trying to learn - Joint attention:  Trying to get attention of another person to focus on the same thing - Done through gaze and pointing - Social referencing:  When exploring unfamiliar things, they look to mum for her reaction - Both developed around 10-12 months - Visual cliff experiment:

  

Placed on table one side looks solid other side looks like a drop (test if they’ve developed depth perception) They become really fearful if their mum also looks fearful and in this case they won’t crawl toward the suspected danger Social referencing helps infants learn about all the strange and new things they encounter

Scaffolding - Between 6 and 18 months - Scaffolding is this concept where we build an infant's knowledge through teaching them about something that's just a little bit more difficult than what they know. - Mental state that can’t be visualised - Mental states and taught by scaffolding from their mum particularly through talking – like desire (do you want this?) - Around this age mums talk more about desire than thoughts or beliefs - Desire is very prominent for infants - Ask baby first so they understand themselves before others Sense of ‘self’ - First noticed and developed around 18 months - Beulah Amsterdam, 1972:  Put an infant in front of a mirror to see if they differentiate between themselves and their reflection  Reach to remove sticker from the mirror or from themselves?  By around 24 months all infants in western societies passed the test - Other research has found they recognise themselves in photos around 2 years old, in videos around 3 - Nielson, Suddendorf and Slaughter, 2006:  When kids start to reach for nose sticker also reach for leg sticker only visible in mirror  Wouldn’t reach for leg sticker when they unknowingly had pants on, and didn’t recognise those legs as their own  Kids have an idea of what they look like to others and changes to self-image can be updated quickly - Start to talk about their own mental state and hence have at least some sense of self @ 18 months with telegraphic speech (2 words – see doggy) - More advanced phrases – I think cake is yummy – around 2 and a half years (30 months) - At first, they talk about desire, perception, and then on to thoughts and beliefs. This relates back to how mothers, at first, talk about what's the easiest thing for the infant to grasp, which is desire. Self versus other distinction - Repacholi and Gopnik in 1997:  infants have a basic understanding of other people's desires.  2 plates – 1 broccoli and 1 biscuit  Experimenter says they don’t like crackers, prefer broccoli  Ate cracker said YUCK ate broccoli said YUM  Asked for some (no specification) and the infant gave them their preference  Suggests that they understand their desires may be different from others - Scaffolded by mother or primary caregiver

-

After infant understands their own desires mum may other peoples’ thoughts and desires when talking to infant so that they learn that others have their own desires too

Prosocial behaviours Helping behaviour - Between 6-18 months infants start to engage in prosocial behaviour - Helping is first one – around 14 months  Experimenter drops peg, infant picks it up and gives it to them  Experimenter carries books to closed cupboard – infant opens door for them - Some people argue that this might be a fundamental form of understanding other people's mental states. - Others argue that this might just be an association between a behaviour and an action. Sharing behaviour - Around 18 months infants show some sharing behaviour  Experimenter has one block, infant has many  At the very beginning its not spontaneous – experimenter has to ask (18 months)  At around 3 and a half to 4 years, sharing becomes les prompted – may just see they have less or that they are upset they have less Comforting behaviour - Around 24 months - One of the hardest for infants to demonstrate - Helping and sharing is easy for them to recognise visually, unlike comforting - Internal states like pain and sorrow are harder to see - Only do it when prompted (is there anything you can do for me?)

Theory of mind What is Theory of Mind? - Developed around 4 years old - The ability to understand other people's mental states and to use that ability to predict subsequent behaviour - Mental states are things like desire, perception, thoughts and beliefs - Theory of mind is tested through their language - Use of contrastive – statements that contrast each other – 30 months (I like princesses, but my brother doesn’t) Understanding seeing Behavioural tasks to also test theory of mind - Visual perception taking test  Child on one side of table, puppet on other – view of each other obstructed  Place an object, pink house, in front of child and ask if the puppet would know what colour it is



-

If the child understands that the puppet can’t see what they can they’ll say no if they think it can they say yes 3-year-olds struggle Understand that other people may see things differently at 4 Hide and seek – 3-year-olds hide in plain view but cover their faces because they think that if they can’t see others can either

Understanding knowledge - Under 3 think everyone would know what they do - Children around 4-5 have typically developed an understanding that what they know might not be the same as what someone else does Understanding belief - Understanding that others believe different things to you - Wimmer and Perner, 1983 (false belief test):  Children are presented with 2 characters – sally, grey dress and basket, and anne – yellow top, dark skirt and box  Sally puts marble in basket and leaves  Anne puts marble in box  Sally returns  Children asked where sally would look  42 months say box, 52 months say marble – developed understanding that just because you say it moved doesn’t mean the other person who didn’t see it moved would share this belief - Cultural differences =slight difference of when - Major shift in theory of mind capacity happens around four to five years of age - This shift happens between three and six years across cultures. The school environment - Those who develop theory of mind early or have it better developed tend to … at school:

Autism spectrum disorder - Most children develop theory of mind at around 3-6 but autistic kids have difficulty with this - Autistic kids have deficits in social abilities - Simon Baron-Cohen and his colleagues, 1985:  Tested kids (4yo) with down syndrome, with different cognitive disabilities, those with autistic and normally developing 4-year-olds  85% of typically developing and down syndrome kids passed the false belief test – they were able to develop a theory of mind



20% of autistic kids passed – they really struggle with developing theory of mind

Moral Development - Social Learning Theory Social -

-

learning theory of moral development Children learn to be moral by imitating adults (parents) Adults shape children’s behaviour and their social learning through punishments and awards We make them think about what seems moral and immoral Albert Bandera 1963:  Weighted doll  Children watched video of adult behaving aggressively toward doll  Kids adopted this modelled behaviour Children model what they see (imitate) from adults – not necessarily just parents They learn what they see don’t necessarily ALWAYS imitate

Problems with social learning theory - Sometimes children can be more oral than their parents – additional source from which they learn morals - Children’s moral reasoning goes through changes over their course of development – becomes more complex as their cognitive ability does

Cognitive theory Cognitive theories of moral development - Jean piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg interested in how children reasoned bout moral dilemmas Piaget’s stages of moral development - One girl broke one cup while breaking a rule other girl broke 15 accidentally - The intent behind the action is what's important for adult morality - Children focus on the outcome though - Young children say the girl who broke more was naughtier - These kids are in the heteronomous stage (4 to 8yo)  this stage says that children focus on rules or laws – rules have their own innate authority  Don’t consider that rules can change or be negotiated  Children learn to take on other people’s laws - Second stage = autonomous stage  From 8 to adulthood  Laws can be relative – made by people for people  Intention behind act is what’s important  This marks the stage where children have an internalised sense of morality, where they're subject to their own law, and they aren’t following the rules to avoid getting in trouble. The story about joe - Kohlberg  84 boys from 5 to 84 years old  Found 6 stages of development - One dilemma  Joe has to save up money for camp, saves it but then dad says no!  Dad wants to go on fishing trip and is short, wants joe’s money  Should joe refuse?

-

Not interested in they say he should but whether or not they can reason it There are complex rationales behind many of our moral conclusions Even as adults, we often don't think all the way through all of the potential moral outcomes and, this is a kind of logic that it takes children a little while to figure out.

Kohlberg’s first four stages of moral development - Kohlberg developed three levels of morality:  The Preconventional Morality  Conventional Morality  Postconventional Morality - Within each level, there are two stages. Ages are approximate but the must go through them in order - Preconventional before the age of 9: punishment orientation and self-interest  They say he can’t refuse because if he doesn’t, he’ll be punished – not because of morality  1st stage – egocentric (what will happen to them), concrete tangibles and rules  2nd stage – would argue that he should because he can do whatever he wants with his money – still egocentric – a little bit more thought into fairness - Conventional between adolescence and adulthood: social perspective and authority and social order  3rd stage – He shouldn’t because joe worked hard to get something his father promised him – social, interpersonal perspective, consideration to the relationship and hard work should get you something  4th stage – he has the right to refuse because of respect for property which is important for order in society – interpersonal relations and his place in society as a whole; common rights and societal expectations and principles which dictate behaviour - Postconventional – only a minority of adults actually reach this stage: social contract orientation and universal ethic principles  Represent universal kinds of morals – prior to society perspective  5th stage – “he has the right to refuse because each person as a free individual is entitled to enjoy the use of property as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others” – basic fundamental human rights, true no matter where you are on the planet  6th stage - This would be morality based on your own personal conscience. Not your social contract, not societal expectations, but because you think that it's the right thing to do. - Stages are linear move from one through to others but can still use phrases and ideas from multiple stages - there is a developmental trend in how children and adolescents, reason about morality; they start out thinking egocentrically, and as they get older, they start to think about principles and society as a whole

Modern approaches to moral development Carol Gilligan’s approach to moral development - Carol Gilligan tested men AND women - Found women more often in stage 3 (cooperative orientation) and men in stage 4 (justice orientation) - Gilligan argues that by failing to test half of the population, Kohlberg may have overestimated the importance of progressing through the stages, and that maybe there are just different kinds of moral reasoning that vary across people. Moral rules versus social conventional rules - Moral rules – pertain to concepts of harm, welfare and fairness - Social convention rules – social order and organisation  more subjective, more arbitrary – we expect ppl in our society to follow these rules but doesn’t represent personal beliefs - Morality is universal (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t hurt) but social convention is more arbitrary (men can be topless, but women can’t, driving on the left side of the road) – we don’t really break these rules, but they don’t reflect morality - They sometimes coincide though – ques are formed to preserve morality and fairness Do children understand moral versus social conventional rules? - Experimenter interviews 4yo child who saw someone hit another person and says you can’t do that because you’ll hurt them even if there is no rule you can’t do that – understands morals - Experimenter interviews 4yo child who saw kids being noisy and she says the rule is to be quiet but without the rule you can be loud – understands social convention - This contradicts work of Piaget and Kohlberg because she’s recognising this at 4 years old The role of parents - Kids who were harshly physically disciplined frequently became more hostile and aggressive – it did not change the way the children moral about reason Baumrind’s axes of parenting - Baumrind, 1967:  Indulgent, authoritative, neglectful and authoritarian parents  High sensitivity: take into account the child’s feelings and perspective, talk things out  Low sensitivity: not talking to the child, not paying attention to what they’re thinking or feeling  Low control: allowing children to behave poorly, don’t try to change or modify child’s behaviour, low academic expectations and allow them to be rude  High control: on top of child’s behaviour, modifying behaviour constantly, high academic and behavioural expectations

Parenting and children’s moral development - Kids with authoritarian parents have low level moral reasoning (punishment and reward – yelling and physical discipline) - Kids with indulgent and neglectful parents also have low social responsibility (because their behaviour is rarely corrected the have little care for whether or not or how they should be contributing to partners or groups) - Kids with authoritative parents have more sophisticated moral reasoning (their parents talk them through their immoral actions so that they learn – these parents demonstrate correction and control but also sensitivity) - Varies across cultures ^^ this is for western (more authoritative) - More authoritarian in eastern – some evidence that in non-western cultures, authoritarian and authoritative parents are similarly effective, both parenting styles produce children who are similarly healthy and similarly good contributors to society - What matters here is probably the match between parenting style, culture, and the child - Sometimes some parenting styles fit better in some cultures but not in others...