Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Jaeleigh Mecham FCS 3215 Exam #3

Set 1: Peer Relationships 1.

It is apparent that childrens conceptions of friendship change from preschool age to middle school. In the text, it explains that childrens friendships often consist of communication, cooperation, and conflict resolution--meaning that they work and communicate with each other effectively, but also fight more. Not only fighting, but the way they resolve it: These children are more likely to negotiate their way out of a conflict (Page 509). The way children value friendship and intimacy depends on the age and developmental age of a child. There are 3 main age groups to be discussed in accordance with peer relationships: the preschool years, schoolage, and middle school years. The conception of friendship, intimacy, and conflict negotiation patterns are very different among these age groups.

Friendships in the preschool years are extremely important, but the manner in which these children choose their friends often depends on the context. Most children of this age play with those that are in the same place at the same time. These children are very egocentric, and this in turn changes the way in which these children view their friendships. According to the lecture, these childrens friendships often are derived from the childs desires at any given time. This results in a temporary bond, and the idea of the same place, same time type of friendship. This illustrates the type of intimacy involved in a preschool childs friendships. These children

often demonstrate the intimacy of friendships of this age to be imitative. These children often enjoy simply being together, and doing the same things that the other child is doing (as stated in the lecture). The egocentrism of these young children also influences the manner in which they resolve conflict. These children have not developed a theory of mind, nor are they able to see the other side of a conflict; thus making their ability to resolve conflict not very effective. They often resort to a fight-or flight type of negotiation--threatening to leave if a child does not give them back their toy, or using physical force to try to get their toy back.

Friendships in the early school years is instrumental and concrete--meaning that they find their friends to be more interesting and easier to get along with than nonfriends (page 510). They view a friend as someone who helps and is beneficial for them. Children at this age have issues with mutuality, and often are unable to take more than one perspective into account. The intimacy at this age often involves playing one role and then switching--this is usually carried out in the form of commands. While playing house, one child might say to the other you go pick up the kids from school, make lunch, and go to work(lecture). This is also apparent in the way these children resolve conflict--it is often one-sided and there is no compromise. From the lecture, it is stated that often one child will get their way and the other child will go along with it.

Friendships in the middle school years are more reciprocal, and less focused on egocentric principles, unlike the friendships of preschool-age children. These children often are friends with those who have the same interests as they do, acceptance, and mutual admiration (page 510 in book). These children are more emotionally attuned to the needs of their friends, and often try to help or be there for them. The intimacy of friendship during the middle school

years is much more reciprocal, and these children are often interested in sharing their perspectives with one another. An example of this, given in the lecture, is that children might talk about an event that they both attended and share their experience from their perspective. Not only is the intimacy more cooperative, but the manner in which these resolve their conflicts. These children often compromise to resolve conflict, and come to a mutual agreement. An example would be deciding what to do after school (from lecture), one child may want to go to the mall, while the other wants to hang out at their house. These children would come to some sort of compromise on what they should do after school.

Set 2: Parenting Styles:


The response to the parenting dilemma is dependent on the type of parenting style the mom exhibits. An authoritarian parenting style is very strict--high in expectations and low in warmth. Authoritative parents are high in expectations of their children and high in warmth, while permissive parents are low in expectations and high in warmth (from lecture).

In response to her son taking a toy airplane from the store, if Molly were an authoritarian parent, she might yell at her son and ask him where he got it. She would most likely use an angry tone of voice, and take the toy away immediately. She would probably yell at him, and tell him that he will be grounded for what he did. She may take the child back to the store and force him to give it back and to apologize. She would most likely not give an explanation as to why this was a wrong choice, and make the child feel bad for taking the toy. This demonstrates the authoritarian parenting style, because it is low in warmth and high in expectation. Molly would

treat her son as if he should know better, but make him feel bad in the process. These parents have high expectations for their children, and when they do not meet them they are punished.

If Molly were an authoritative parent, she would handle this situation differently than an authoritarian parent would. She would most likely ask her son where he got the toy, and explain why it was wrong to take a toy from the store without paying for it. She would most likely take her son back to the store, give the toy back, and have him tell her why stealing is not appropriate. Charlie would definitely get in trouble for taking the toy, but Molly would not make him feel stupid for taking it. She would be stern with him, but also provide an explanation, and maybe even make him feel guilty that he took the toy. Authoritative parents have high expectations for their children, but they are also good with giving explanations. They want their child to understand why something is not acceptable behavior because it is important that they become functioning members of society.

If Molly were a permissive parent, she would probably not react at all. She would allow her son to keep the toy, and maybe say that it was not right to take it. Her son would not be punished for stealing the toy, but most likely allowed to keep it. Permissive parents do not expect their child to obey rules, and they are rarely punished for their behavior. If Molly were permissive, she would probably just let her son do whatever he wanted--even keep the toy that he took from the store.

Set 3: Based Heavily on Readings:


The basic methodology of Ken Dodges Study 1 is to determine how aggressive and nonaggressive boys would react to specific situations. They selected 15 aggressive, and 15 nonaggressive boys in grades 2, 4, and 6. They determined whether or not they were aggressive by asking the childs teacher and peers. The aggressive and non-aggressive boys were matched by race, and they were put into secluded trailers where they listened to an audio recording. The boys were told that they would receive a prize if they completed the puzzle. They had the boys move to other trailers and listen to an audio recording of what the children believed was going on in the the trailer containing their puzzles. The audio recordings were meant to sound either hostile, benign, or ambiguous in regards to intent, and they wanted to determine how both aggressive and non-aggressive boys would react. (Ken Dodge Article).

The aggressive and non-aggressive boys responded both similarly and differently depending on the intent they believed they heard on the audio recording. When the intent was clear, both the aggressive and non-aggressive boys responded similarly. In these situations, when the recording depicted a hostile motive--that the puzzle was destroyed on purpose, both the aggressive and non-aggressive boys responded similarly. Both groups retaliated by destroying the puzzle in the other trailer. This response between aggressive and non-aggressive boys was also similar when the intent portrayed in the recording appeared benign. The recording sounded like the child was attempting to help them complete their puzzle, and destroyed it (on accident) in the process. Both the aggressive and non-aggressive boys responded by trying to help complete the puzzle in the other trailer. When they responded differently, it was due to the intent of the other child being ambiguous--the sound on the recording being a crash of the puzzle with no evident reasoning. The aggressive boys retaliated by destroying the puzzle in the other trailer, while non-aggressive boys were neutral.

The results of this study depict the differences in behavior between aggressive and nonaggressive young boys. Ken Dodge says that aggressive children engage in cue distortion-which is now called the hostile attribution bias. This means that aggressive and non-aggressive children react differently when intentions are not clear (or ambiguous). The aggressive children engage in hostile behavior, while the non-aggressive children often respond neutrally. It is apparent that aggressive children automatically believe that another persons intentions are hostile when they are conveyed ambiguously--while the non-aggressive children do not engage in this hostile attribution. The results basically illustrated the bias of hostility that aggressive children have in hostile and ambiguous situations.