Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Dev: In community and ACROSS lifespan - Coggle Diagram
Social Dev: In community and ACROSS lifespan
Social Interactions
Early
Infancy > pre-school
imaginative and pretend play
becomes more complex from on own > parallel with others > joint, coop/ play, from with adults
sharing - opportunity for prosocial behaviour
conflict eg fighting over toys
Babies
simple social interactions ie joint arousal
sensitive to emotional states - eg. reacting to others' sadness
Developing
primary schl
larger peer grp (ie classrooms of 30)
less adult supervision
increase in aggression inc subtle forms of verbal ie teasing
increase in same-sex interactions but remember this is a trend - there
are
exceptions
decline in pretend play? arguably in favour of other playground games but is contested - element of pretend play brought to games and interactions
adolescence
peer interactions predominate - less time with parents/tachers
increase in cross-sex interactions
increases in bullying, aggression and social exclusion
conflict changes with age
more verbal over physical as older
conflict abt an object vs about a concept/idea
Chen et al (2001) - 2 yr old's = conflicts more abt objects + needed adult intervention VS 4 yr olds = conflicts abt ideas + able to resolve on own
as older since less 1-1 supervision HAVE to learn to resolve conflict on own
from basic social interactions > social relationships > social grouos
Stages in
Adulthood
early adulthood (18-40), middle (40-60) and late (60+) - BUT debate abt boundaries - changing, diff patterns
Psychodynamic: Erikson's stages
where each stage defined by different psycho-social conflict
stage 1: infancy
trust vs mistrust
develop trust when primary caregiver (= most impotant relationship) responds to needs
stage 2: toddlerhood
autonomy vs shame
important for some independance when safe/positive - too protective caregivers > shame
1.5-3 yrs, caregiver still most important relationship
stage 3: preschool
iniative vs guilt
family = important relationships
children learn to take iniative but learn through restraint to learn abt negative aspects of actions/guilt
stage 4: childhood
6-12 yrs
neighbourhoods and schools most important relationships
industry/competence vs inferiority (asked to do too much)
stage 5: adolescence
12-18 yrs
wider peer grps prominent relationship
conflict btwn SELF/identity vs role confusion
stage 6: young adulthood
18-30 yrs
intimacy vs isolation
important relationships = partners and friends, interpersonal
stage 7: middle adulthood
30-50 yrs
family and co-workers important
peak of career - important to generate success and not stagnate (in terms of career AND family life = conflict is stagnation vs generativity
stage 8: late adulthood
integrity vs despair
50+ - cld be product of time of theory
reflecting on contribution to society/mankind, positive abt it or despair
Levinson's life structures
early adult transition 17-22, 2. midlife transition 40-45, late adult transition 60-65
era of early adulthood (17-45) = initial choses of love, lifestyle
era of middle adulthood (40-60)- settling down, career and family
era of late adulthood (55-) = reflection of successes andd values
focus on transitions rather than fixed stages - better reflects cultural diff's
Meaning of old around world?
less advantaged counrties, poorer access to healthcare = diff meaning that ctries like Japan with higher life expectancy
txtbks have predom view of high incom/westernised ctxts
grandparenthood (lecture)
grandparents may vary at level across bronfenbrenner's proposed systems - ie individualistic cultures - grandparents more separate from family vs collectivist - grandparents more active so more central - but modernisation of collectivist changing?
Time spent with grandparents
Covid - highlighted importance of being childcare providers and some children live with them (multigen households)
varied across demographics - more likely to be primary caregivers in low-income and minoritised racial grps
asia - grandparents in rural communities take caring responsibilites as parents work, africa - long tradition they provide childcare even outside rural/city divide
explanations why grandparents invest time and resources (Coall et al 2018)
evolutionary perspective - adaptive to specieis
economic perspective - altruistic or self interest exchange (grandchild helping them when in need/resources)
sociological perspective - relational grandparent model - depends on relationship btwn child and grandchild
influencing child outcomes
Sadruddin et al 2019 - as primary caregivers - assosciated with poor physical/cognitive health for child BUT when living in multigen household assosciated with BETTER child's cog health and mixed for physical/socio-ecomotional
but tied with SES background - hard to disentangle
Types of care
(contact, visiting frequency, behaviours, support),
contexts of care
(interpersonal - age/child-rearing/parent relationship status - and structural contexts - ie cost of living/insecurity/race/income) and
child outcomes
(physical, socioemotional and cognitive)
Benefits of grandparent-grandchild interactions
esp. play, FOR grandparent - promotes physical activity and social connectedness to world around them
grandparents scaffold children's development of social-emotional skills and learning abt cultural heritage ie mother language, family games, cultural stories/traditions
playing with digital games can promote intergen interactions - provides accesible communal activity that enhances interactions/prosoc bhvrs and sharing knowledge - +ve use of digit. technology here
Social relationships
from schl age onwards children develop friendship base, start being aware of reciprocity and more nuanced idea of what a friend is
links to more advanced ToM abilities
means negative dynamics also become more important ie bullying
childhood friendship
reward-cost stage (7-9)
expect friends to offer help
sharing common activities and ideas
normative stage (10-11)
expect friends to accept and admire them
loyalty, commitment, similar values/attitudes
adolescent friendship
empathetic stage (12-13)
expect genuinesss, self-disclosure, potential for intimacy
expect understanding, sharing personal info
sharing interests/attitudes/values
friendship here (loyalty and support) = protective for -ve stressors
more likely to feel jealous of one another
-ve effects: betrayal, group rumination making negative events more influential
not all friendships harmonious BUT even CONFLICTS better in friendships than non-friendships
imaginary
harmless, serve =ve function ie help children try out social interactions + assosciated with better exec. function/social skills
Pearson et al (2001) - pretty common to have one especially 5-6 yrs old - declines after age 9 which mirrors decline of pretend play
romantic
in adolescent period
conflict higher in dating relationships
short but intense relationships
btwn 15-17 (Carver et a; 2003)
30% of 13 yr olds were in one, abt 60% were in romantic relationship when 17
older adolescents = longer relationships, more compromise, deeper bonds
importance of cultural influences (btwn and within) and differences with age appropriateness for dating
Evidence of similarity attracting
Simon et al (2008) - prospective design, collected data at 2 time points ( time 2 - data when students were couple) - relationships lasting around 14 weeks
+ve correlations btwn partners on popularity, body attractivness, depressive symptoms
relates to +ve assosciative mating
Social groups
Cliques
form in early adolescent/late primary schl
= stable grps of peers who tend to spend time together AND exclude other ppl
small grps, relatively short lived (ie falling out with someone else in clique leading to change every mth)
links to conceptual self - children noticing position within wider network
crowds
2ndary schl period
bigger grps, including both genders
defined by similary styles/hobbies/activities/ shared values
coincides with time spend less time with teachers/caregivers - so friends become important component of social lives
sociometry/peer nomination
studying how peers interact and think of each other (relative standing)
questions like who do you like the most/least, who is most/least popular, bullies others or most bullied - from the questions can plot networks of how individuals connected bto each other
used on both children and adolescents, reported by teachers and/pr combined with children's
5 sociometric types:
popular = liked by many, disliked by few, friendly, assertive (not in -ve way)
rejected = high no. of dislikes, hostile attribution bias, emotional problems (ie depression/anxiety), behavrl problems
neglected = not liked but not disliked, tend to be shy and withdrawn NOT dominant in social interactions, NOT assosciated with-ve outcomes
controversial = liked by many, disliked by many, NOT stable category - many move in/out, sociable and aggressive
average = all other children, not polarising
popular type assosciated with +ve outcomes of being happy and less anxiety
Community influences
Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Model
individual at centre of systems, micro = immediate and not fixed, meso = broader, exo = less direct influence ie local politics, macro = cultural idealogies of ctx and time
social media would be in mesosystem
children initially spend more time with adult companions (inc parents) but over time spend more time with peers and ALSO PREFER hanging out with peers
implication: children spending less time with adults/caregivers/teachers
so how influential are they esp with -ve and risky bhvrs?
Poelin et al (2007): having father and mother drinking regularly assosciated with HIGHER risk of drinking in children but ALSO alcohol use of co-twin and friends' alcohol use assosciated
both parents and peers role in drinking bhvr BUT assosciations reduce over time - not an either/or so false dichotomy
Culture! = French et al (2011)
7 yr old children playing with others for 5 minutes with highly desirable toy and videotaped this - coded as either "assertive" or "passive"
Chinese children making assertive bids -VELY correlated with how much liked children making them
Canadian children making passive bid liked less (but assosciation for passive bids + chinese children = non-sig)
ASSESMENT in difff. cultural contexts (Gladstone et al)
social dev assessed in western test -- pat-a-cake (western game), playing ball with experimenter, feeding doll - but this doll actually scary for children in Malawi - not suitable test
rural Malawai = social duties/roles more important SO being independantly sent on earrands, reporting experiences/events, sharing food with friends
so social dev. scales not as simple as just translating
study asked rep's from THAT community what indicators showed advanced social dev
Stability and change over lifespan - aging
Physical changes
physical decline ie muscle strength, endurance declining rapidly
shorter
menopause in women (lecture!)
difficult for autistic ppl - Jenkins et al (2024) raised themes of GAP in accessible info, struggling with wellbeing, mistrust/avoidance of medical system, isolating and experiencing stigma OR positive identity development/agency
stigmatised subject in some communities - in some seen as natural process that doesn't require medical support, experiences/sumptoms discussed in diff ways so healthcare providers may not always be able to connect the dots
Dillaway et al 2008 - african american women/mexican (esp working class) viewed as +ve experience, vs European Americans discussed more negative and LESS likely to report talking abt it than women of colour with same-race/sex friends
lack of evidence-based guidelines for managing gender-affirming hormone treatment with menopause diverse menopause experiences in trans and gender diverse community + minimal support
andropause in men - reduced production of testosterone, varied symptoms
decline in other senses, but more rapidly visual/auditory
Pathological - parksinons, alzheimers (memory, problem solving), dementia, sleep disorders
cognitive aging
aging brain
reduced plasticity
loss of neuronal connections - evry 10 yrs brain volume/weight reduces by 2%
brain shrinkage
but not all areas of brain deteriorate at same speed ie deterioration of hippocampus - link to memory
aging "well" - predicted by genetic and lifestyle factors ie exercise/healthy eating
studies inc Der and Deary (2006) show reaction times getting slower and slower with age as we get to 60s-70s- show sim. pattern with complex RT tasks too
diff types of intelligence decline at diff rates/times ie fluid intelligence (relies on cognitive) declines earlier and quicker
ToM = impaired in elderly individuals, related to decline in exec. function and processing speed in verbal ToM tasks, improved vocab may protect against decline
Explanations:
Brain reserve hypothesis
social and cognitive stimulation help build up reserves of ability - protects againsts -ve effects of aging
Hakansson et al (2009)
population based, longitud study in Finland - assessed pp's at 50 and 21 yrs later on marital status and cognitive functioning at follow up, also screened prescence of ApoE4 gene (risk for Alzheimer's)
FOUND; those with ApoE4 gene more at risk for Alzheimers but risk HIGHER for those widowed/divorced in midlife - more likely also with those cohabiting
those widowed/divorced in midlife 3 times higher risk compared to married and cohabitiing pp's
Protecting:
Optimisation
choose goal and practice skill specifically related
allocating resource to goal - creates specialised expertise, success at older age
eg knitting
Compensation
change
behaviour to
make up for
loss in cognitive skill
eg shopping lists, creating guides and "how to do"'s
Successful aging
"successful" = thriving for long time vs "pathological" aging = sharp decline around 60s
Rowe and Kahn (1998)'s 3 elements
maintaining good physical health
retaining cognitive abilities
retaining engagement with social and productive activities
Use it or lose it
= to avoid age-related decline, continue to use cognitive and physical ailities - but this not agreed by all - cld be reverse causation
Dufouil et al (2014) - found older age retirement of self employed shopkeepers and craft workers (no mandatroy pension age) assosciated with reduced risk of dementia BUT cld be longer stayer in and work -- protection
but from this study, cannot exclude reverse causation explanation - cld be ppl developing dementia and losing cognitive abilities so forced to close down business/ stop working earlier
Other positive links with aging
personality - relatively stable BUT decrease in openness, extraversion relatively stable
conscientioussness increases as ppl enter workforce 20s-30s
happiness - INCREASE in +ve affect with age and decrease in -ve
cld be positivity bias - as older, tend to have more +ve view of reality - Mather and Carstensen (2005) supported this as young adults better at remembering ALL events (pictures) but older grp more likely to remember the POSITIVE (neural explanation? amygdala less active responding to -ve than +ve stimuli)