1 Psychology 3260: Personality & Social Development Don Hartmann Spring 2006 Lecture 10: Peers I

2 Administration The library has a Writing Center (in conjunction with the Writing Program) on Level 3 “to help students at all levels become better writers.” (Phone # or just drop by the 3 rd floor of Marriott in the Atrium area). Ben is your man. If your group elected to write autobiographical papers, but a minority would like to present to the class, they are welcome to recruit from other groups. Please let me know who you are. Reed Dow Salem Honey Quote of the Day: " Be who you are and say how you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"----Dr. Seuss

3 WEB Discussion Topic #10 I. J. Skinner & the classroom. Bono. Summary due Thursday, February 16th. Assume that you are a elementary school teacher. You are intrigued with Skinner’s theory, and are attempting to integrate his theory into your teaching practices. What implications can you come up with from what you have learned about his theory? Which of his principles are implicated in the potential applications you have noted?

4 WEB Discussion Topic #11 I.K. Bronfenbrenner & Skinner. Girlie. Summary due Friday, February 17th. While both Skinner and Bronfenbrenner (who recently died) focus on the environment’s “control” over behavior, neither one would be comfortable being described as a follower of the other. How do their theories differ? How do their conceptions of the environment differ? As always, feel free to reply to the comments of others.

5 WEB Discussion Assignments & Due Dates WEB Assignment # Group IIIIIIIV CSI02/03 Growing Pain02/06 Psyched02/07 Agrrrression02/08 Authoritarians 02/09 Divas02/10 Peer Pressure02/13 Morally Distinguished02/14 Raging Hormones02/15 Bono02/16 Girlie02/19 Note: Each discussion topic closes at 5:00 p.m. two days prior to the stated due data.

6 Panel Discussion Schedule Wednesday… Feb. 15 th Feb. 22 nd Identity (Murquia et al.) Feb. 29 th Mar. 08 th Mar. 15 th Bullying (Borski et al.) Mar. 29 th Apr. 05 nd : Family topic (Kyle et al.) Apr. 12 th Apr. 19 th Get you time period now, they are going like hot cakes!

7 Handout Summary Handout* WEB Date Date 11. Sup. Lect. #3: Method III / HO: Autobio. Term Paper / Lecture #4a: Method III / HO: Completed Class Locator01/ Sup. Lect: Term Paper / Code of Academic Conduct / Study Guide #2: Chpt / Lect. #7: Skinner / Lect. #8: Bandura / Study Guide # / Lect. #9: Piaget / Lect. 10: Peers I / Study Guide # / *Handout date refers to the date the handout was distributed in class. WEB date indicates the date the handout should have been included on the class WEB site. A dashed line indicates that the handout either was not distributed in class or was not placed on the WEB.

8 Study Guide Assistance from the Instructor Based upon past experience, a number of you will wait until the night before the exam to prepare answers to the study guides. You should know the rules relating to requests to the instructor for help on the study guides:  I do not take class material home with me, so I am unlikely to be able to answer questions after 5:00 p.m. on the evening prior to the exam—or any other evening.  You are to use the instructor as a last resort after consulting with class mates about study guide answers.  The instructor will not answer more than 3 study guide questions per request and you are limited to 1 request per day.

9 Supplementary References: Peers I Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., Chen, X., Buskirk, A.A., Wojslawowicz, J.C. (2005). Peer relations in childhood. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.) Developmental science: An advanced textbook (5 th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp ). New York: Wiley.

10 Overview of Peer Relations I Lecture Overlap with text, pp & Lecture  Who Are Peers?  Why Study Peers?  Historical Perspective Scientific Investigations of the Peer Group: Early Period Next: Lecture 11: Peers II

11 Peers: Who are they? In age-graded society, children within a year of age of one another; individuals of a similar level of behavioral complexity However, wider age variation true of neighborhood social groups

12 Parental vs. Peer Relationships Parents Peers Hierarchical Equalitarian Nurturance Competition DependencyReciprocity

13 Ellis et al.: Neighborhood Companions

14 What do children do with their peers? High Tech Method Hi tech (Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen): Experience time sampling

15 What do children do with their peers? Low Tech Method Diaries (Zarbatany et al. & Hartmann et al.) 10-14%: Hanging out, Team sports, & Classroom activities 5-9%: Recreational activities, individual sports, study/rehearsal, & eating

16 Who Cares? And Why? Increasing evidence that peers are critical to our eventual adult functioning  Animal studies: Harlow's studies of peer deprived monkeys)  Longitudinal studies of children who have faulty peer relations, particularly those who are either aggressive or rejected (Parker & Asher, 1987 Psychological Bulletin review), indicates that these children are at risk for later problems. Important for development of social control, social skills, and social values.

17 The Declining Influence of Parents?

18 Historical Perspective EARLY SPECULATIONS  Dukheim, Cooley, Mead, & Piaget.  Education (Isaacs): Social contact and kindergarten and nursery experiences

19 SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS OF THE PEER GROUP The early period Early observational work (Ruth Arrington at Yale); early studies of gangs  Work of Kurt Lewin  Moreno's work on sociometric techniques.

20 Sociometric Classifications Positive Nominations Few Many Negative Nominations Many Few Controversial Popular RejectedNeglected

21 Assessing Popularity Referred to as Sociometric Status (SMS) Started with Moreno (of Psychodrama fame) Participants asked two questions (nominations or ratings):  Who do you like?  Who do you dislike? Then construct two dimensions  Like + Dislike = Social Impact  Like – Dislike = Social Preference Individuals assigned to classification categories based upon their Social Impact and Social Preference scores

22 Rejected Popular Average Neglected Controversial Average Social Preference Social Impact Low High Is the child liked?

23 The Results Of the 60% who are classifiable (40% are “other”)  15% average  7.5% controversial  7.5% neglected  15% popular  15 rejected. Peer-based classification agree with teacher ratings Accurately predict the character of children’s peer interactions Stability: Controversial least stable; rejected most stable.

24 What are they like? Large number of observational, peer report, and self-report studies on children’s SMS Rejected kids:  Rejected-aggressive: uncooperative, critical; little prosocial behavior. At greatest risk for future problems  Rejected-withdrawn: awkward, insensitive, and immature. Lonely with low self esteem Popular: outgoing, friendly, supportive, and calm. Initiate interactions and resolve disputes amicably. Prosocial and not aggressive Neglected: passive and shy. Don’t initiate and don’t call attention to self Controversial: the jokesters; some evidence that controversial adolescent girls are more likely to have kids early

25 Summary of Social Cognition Lecture Lecture  Who Are Peers?  Why Study Peers?  Historical Perspective  Scientific Investigations of the Peer Group: Early Period Next: Lecture #11: Peers II Go in Peace