PSY 104 Child and Adolescent Development WK5-D

15Play, Peers, School, and Media

Hero Images/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, you should be able to:

ሁ Distinguish between different kinds of preschool environments and generate evidence-based conclusions about the benefits of preschool.

ሁ Outline types of play and elaborate on the psychosocial and cognitive benefits that play provides. ሁ Describe how the structure and activity of friendships change throughout childhood. ሁ Differentiate among a number of peer statuses and generalize about group outcomes. ሁ Synthesize developmental issues related to bullying and identify commonly used intervention

strategies. ሁ Identify trends in adolescent use of tobacco and psychoactive substances. ሁ Discuss the changing role of electronic media in the development of children.

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

Prologue In response to a prompt in a recent class, Akira, a young college student, related how our everyday experiences with peers and in activities can deeply affect how we develop:

In the world that technology has taken over our communications, I usually feel lonely. Yesterday I was in a room with my group of friends. Every one of us was on the phone, either texting or on social media. It was really bad. There were no words tossing around the room, it was just complete silence. There were so many opportunities to connect to the people next to you, yet people were on their phones for no reason. Then, I thought about loneliness as I looked around the room. Being on the phone is a way to isolate us from the community. We might have hundreds of friends on social media, but how many REAL friends do we have? I think we become more lonely when we get into our phones. At least, I do. I feel sad that we are missing out on living in the moment. It happens whether we are in a room by ourselves or in a room full of people. Whenever my partner is on the phone—not even talking—for a long period of time, I get lonely to the point that I feel like I am not loved or I cannot talk about my concerns. He is right next to me, and there is complete silence for hours. What can we do in those few hours without being on the phone? He didn’t have a phone when we met. We were totally different back then compared to how we are today. I get really sad when I think how com- munication has changed.

Akira’s poignant response reveals to us how individual circumstances can have a profound effect on development for some, and have little effect for others. It also reminds us that we are all affected by the ways in which technology has transformed social interaction, among young people especially. Just as the advancement of automobiles and the telephone transformed social networks during the 20th century, the Information Age is no doubt affecting part of the foundation of psychosocial growth for today’s generation of children. As this final module explains, these developments are an extension of the relationships that begin in preschool and in play activities.

Therefore, we begin by looking at different types of preschool programs and consider the sci- entific evidence of their value. Because play is an essential part of learning and development, it is a natural extension to the discussion on preschool. Later we explore how friendships mature and the importance of peer relations, including what makes a child popular or not, and the risk factors associated with bullying. Because use of psychoactive substances, like marijuana and alcohol, is influenced heavily by peers, this module addresses substance use, as well. The module concludes with a discussion of media and the Internet in an effort to bet- ter understand how modern technology affects young people like Akira.

15.1 Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start? Often, the first consistent relationship that children have outside of family is in preschool. About two-thirds of children attend some kind of center-based preschool program before they enter kindergarten, an increase of 50% in just one generation. In 2012, about 54% of

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

3 and 4 year olds attended a center-based preschool program, down from a peak of 56% in 2002 (Flanagan, McPhee, & Mulligan, 2009; National Center for Education Statistics, 2014; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). Through popular wisdom and personal stories, we tend to think that early childhood education is both necessary and scientifically sound. But is it?

Types of Preschools: Child-Centered or Academic? Preschool programs can generally be classified as more teacher-directed academic programs or more self-directed child-centered ones. Academic programs focus on planning and struc- ture. Parents are expected to bring their children on a schedule, just like they would when their children are in elementary school. Teachers implement an academic curriculum that usually includes repetition and drill in numbers, colors, shapes, letters, and so forth. Stan- dardized worksheets are not uncommon. At designated intervals, there is unstructured play- time, singing, and other activities as well.

Child-centered programs are devoted more to play and unplanned invention. There is a natu- ral flow to learning as children count blocks, name colors of toys, and engage in social play and discovery. A child-centered approach acknowledges that children develop at an individual pace and that learning is best served through exploration rather than a standard approach. Whether or not Piaget was right about the stage-like progression of development, most early childhood educators acknowledge the necessity of developmentally appropriate activities for children. This focus is a direct descendant of Piaget’s theories.

Though perhaps paradoxical, evidence indicates that children who attend child-centered rather than academic preschools develop better math and reading skills, have more advanced motor behavior and better social skills, exhibit less stress, and become more actively engaged in learning (Burts et al., 1992; Hart et al., 1998; Marcon, 1999). One of the reasons that the child-centered approach has been found to be more effective is because children choose their own activities. In this way, children are more often engaged in developmentally appropriate ways. In an academic preschool, as in any other school setting, there is great variation in the skill levels of children. If children are treated mostly the same, many will not be working at a developmentally appropriate level.

It is, however, difficult to make general conclusions across preschool environments since individual programs have a lot of variation; research is confounded further by family vari- ables. For instance, wealthier parents are much more likely than economically disadvantaged parents to send their children to higher-quality preschools. And perhaps parents who opt for child-centered preschool education spend more time on academics at home. Although the level of parental education and socioeconomic status (SES) are the most reliable predic- tors of school success, as opposed to any particular school environment, the ways in which family can influence achievement are multifaceted and complicated (Kagitcibasi, 2014; Sohr- Preston et al., 2013; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).

The Montessori Method One child-centered approach is the Montessori method. Maria Montessori (1870–1952) was an Italian psychiatrist who worked with children identified as physically and intellectu- ally disabled. She demonstrated that training and sensory stimulation could help many of these children reach skill levels equal to those of children who were developing normally. She

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

then broadened her techniques for use with all children. Over 100 years ago, when she began to implement her methods, the prevailing wisdom was that children were simply small adults. Instead, she showed that children benefit from different learning environments and that young minds are capable of self-directed learning. These ideas were one of Piaget’s important influences as he developed his theory of cognitive development.

In the Montessori method, children are offered considerable choice and are not restricted from moving from one activity to another (Montessori, 2004). In pure Montessori schools, teachers are there to facilitate learning rather than direct its course and only provide aid (like scaffold-

ing) when it is requested. Although having available role models remains important, unlike Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach to learning, the Montessori method deem- phasizes social interaction. Critics point to this part of Montessori’s philosophy as an important shortcoming.

Reggio Emilia Another popular child-centered program also originated in Italy. Reggio Emilia dif- fers philosophically from the Montessori method by offering a social-constructivist approach; collaborative learning is stressed instead of independent exploration. It also differs in its emphasis on parental and com- munity involvement. Reggio Emilia teachers are not necessarily trained; they become

“co-learners” and partners in participation and discovery. Parents are expected to have an interactive relationship with the school and the community, reflecting the idea that it “takes a village” to raise a child; parents must be involved in school and public policy to ensure com- munity support.

In this setting, children promote their own play and learning interests and long-term collab- orative projects are emphasized over individual discovery. The Reggio Emilia approach also involves “intentional socialization,” in which teachers manufacture opportunities for children to participate in specific dialogues or group conversations (Hewett, 2001; Rankin, 2004). Specific activities in this environment are found to be quite effective at increasing the enjoy- ment of school and decreasing problem behaviors after children transition to kindergarten (Schneider et al., 2014).

Head Start Because evidence shows that SES is a strong determinant of academic success, the U.S. gov- ernment launched Head Start in 1965 as one way to fight poverty and improve outcomes for children from low-income families. About 962,000 children (including 848,000 children aged 3 to 5 years) attend Head Start programs at a projected federal cost of about $8.6 billion

Nadezhda Prokudina/iStock/Thinkstock ሁ The child-centered Montessori method

encourages self-directed learning and offers various forms of sensory stimulation.

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

for 2014, or more than $9,000 per child when local expenditures are added in (U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, 2014). Head Start provides educational and nutritional services for children and also attempts to address the social and vocational needs of parents. When Congress reauthorized Head Start in 1992, school readiness was made the program’s official goal, partly because its original intent to fight poverty was largely unsuccessful (Zigler, 2003). More recently, Early Head Start was added to focus on the cognitive needs of children as young as newborns.

Some research outcomes comparing children who attend Head Start with those who do not attend preschool have been encouraging. Evidence indicates that children who attend Head Start are less likely to repeat a grade, are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and are less likely to be arrested (Currie & Thomas, 1995; Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). In general, children who attend Head Start enter kindergarten with better social skills; they have fewer behavior problems; and they test higher for language skills, reading readiness (including phonetic decoding), attention, and overall cognition (Bier- man et al., 2014; Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2011).

Other research has been less favorable. A large-scale statistical analysis of Head Start found that children exiting the program do not perform any better overall than non–Head Start chil- dren. Head Start has “repeatedly been proven ineffectual” due partly to the home environ- ment and partly to the inadequacy and inconsistency of the various programs (Levitt & Dub- ner, 2006, p. 170). The program’s own analysis shows no long-term academic impact beyond third grade (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Once children exit Head Start, it appears that parental variables and the complicated effects of low SES override any cognitive benefits that early intervention may have provided (Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Currie & Thomas, 2000; Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Gelber & Isen, 2013). As Zigler (2003) remarked, “There is no magical, permanent cure for the problems associated with poverty” (p. 10). Research with non–Head Start programs has found similar patterns. It appears that any academic gains attributable to early childhood education programs disappear by third grade or, among disad- vantaged preschoolers, even sooner (Lazar & Darlington, 1982; Magnusen, Ruhm, & Waldfo- gel, 2007; Yoshikawa et al., 2013).

It is difficult to weigh the relative importance of poten- tial nonacademic benefits that have been found, such as improved fitness, emotional stability, and parental involvement and behavior (Gelber & Isen, 2013; Lee, Zhai, Han, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2013; Lipscomb, Pratt, Schmitt, Pears, & Kim, 2013). Head Start pro- grams vary from state to state and even among indi- vidual facilities in proximity to one another, which makes comparisons difficult. Finally, although research consistently finds that cognitive gains from Head Start disappear by third grade, advantages seem to reappear after high school. That is, even though standardized testing results show that children who attended Head Start do not maintain an advantage in elementary school, there appear to be gains in high school graduation rates, college attendance, and future earnings (Chetty et al., 2011; Gelber & Isen, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013)

Critical Thinking How would you respond to those who are con- vinced a particular preschool program is effec- tive because their own children enjoyed large cognitive and social gains in the program? From a scientific perspective, what are some impor- tant issues to consider when addressing this conclusion?

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

A C T I V I T Y : W h a t M a k e s a “ Q u a l i t y ” P r e s c h o o l ? Signs of high-quality early education include the following:

• Qualified, experienced educators who speak and interact at the child’s level, including physically being on the floor.

• Low child-staff ratio, allowing for frequent individual contact.

• A variety of stimulating activities; children are not restricted to one activity for an extended period of time.

• Safety standards.

• An inclusive, inviting atmosphere where unannounced visits are welcomed.

• Space for vigorous physical movement, even in colder climates where outdoor activity may not be possible for weeks at a time.

• Staff who engage children individually and an environment in which not all children are expected to perform at the same level.

• Generous periods of free play.

• Close relationships with both children and parents.

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project Rather than an imprecise network of Head Start schools, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study is a more closely monitored project. Since 1962, children who attended a high-quality preschool have been compared to those who received no preschool. The project involved 123 black children who were born into poverty and were identified as high risk for school failure. Fifty-eight children were randomly assigned to the preschool program, and the remaining 65 served as controls. Children who attended the program attended closely monitored class- rooms for 2.5 hours each day, usually for 2 years. They and their families also participated in weekly home visits from project professionals. Follow-up reports were obtained period- ically. The most recent follow-up at age 40 demonstrated significant gains, as Figure 15.1 shows (Schweinhart et al., 2005). Children who attended Perry Preschool were less likely than control subjects (i.e., not attending preschool) to become pregnant in high school or to be arrested. They had higher graduation rates from both high school and college. At 27 and 40 years old, they were more likely than controls to be employed, to have higher incomes, and to own their own homes. Although evidence indicates that gains might be overstated, the High/Scope Perry model appears to deliver the family and community support that Head Start programs do not always provide (Gelber & Isen, 2013; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, & Yavitz, 2013).

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

Figure 15.1: Perry Preschool findings at age 40 ሁ Favorable outcomes for children who participated in the High/Scope Perry Preschool program

included fewer arrests, higher graduation rates, more employment, and higher incomes.

High/Scope model Traditional model

40% 60%20%0% 80% 100%

IQ 90+ at 5

Homework at 15

Basic achievement at 14

Graduated regular high school

Earned $20K at 40

Arrested 5+ times by 40

Source: From The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40, by L. J. Schweinhart. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. © 1999 High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Used with permission.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Until funding was discontinued in 2009, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) had been tracking a group of more than 1,300 preschoolers since 1991, investigating the overall effects of preschool on cognitive and social development (see NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005). High-quality childcare (provid- ing a high measure of sensitivity, emotional support, and cognitive stimulation) was an early predictor of preacademic skills, but more hours of care was also associated with increased behavior problems. Aggression and disobedience were demonstrated toward mothers, teach- ers, and other caregivers alike, and differences persisted into kindergarten and beyond.

In a newer analysis of the datasets, earlier findings regarding academic achievement and behavior problems have been found to persist into adolescence, though differences remain small (Vandell et al., 2010). In addition, quality of care and quantity of hours in care impact outcomes independently. High-quality care was found to be a strong predictor of academic success when compared to low-quality care, but more time spent in nonmaternal care contin- ued to predict a greater degree of behavioral problems.

Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, mimicked the results from NICHD. Longitudinal research has repeatedly found that preschool is associated with increased reading and math skills at kindergarten entry, but is also associated with increased behavioral problems and less self-control. Furthermore, the academic gains faded by the middle of first grade, but the behavior problems persisted (Lee et al., 2014; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007).

Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

Conclusions The direct benefits of preschool for children are questionable, yet there is relatively little con- troversy. Critics of universal preschool argue that the most important variable in school pre- paredness is parental involvement. And they are correct. The easiest way to predict the aca- demic success of infants is to look at the income level and educational attainment of parents. Children in maternal care do not differ significantly from those in childcare (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : S c h o o l R e a d i n e s s My wife and I have differing views on Head Start and other preschool programs that are designed to accelerate school readiness. As a kindergarten teacher, she knows when chil- dren have attended preschool because they are better prepared socially and academically when they enter elementary school. And I have no doubt that she can indeed identify those who are school-ready from their behavior. However, I am a science guy, and I know what the research up to this point says: By third grade, all those kindergarteners will be at about the same level, whether or not they attended Head Start or another program. So does Head Start work? The answer is clear if you teach kindergarten.

By contrast, proponents of universal preschool argue that quality is the determining factor in the success of early childhood education. Though effects are small, research supports this position (Keys et al., 2013; Magnuson et al., 2007; Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones 2006). That is, children who attend high-quality preschools indeed benefit, but only compared to those who attend lower-quality childcare facilities. On average, groups of children who attend preschool do not consistently outperform similar groups of children who do not attend. Once again, family variables are much stronger predictors.

Therefore, formalized preschool in general is not an overwhelming determinant of school success. Maternal care, quality of the preschool environment, and later elementary school placement are more predictive of academic outcome (and all are associated with SES). Given demographic trends of single-parent and two-working-parent families, the need for preschool care is not going to disappear. The larger concern then is for the estimated 60% of children who attend lower-quality programs that are less responsive to children’s needs (Barnett, Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2012; Reynolds & Ou, 2004). For other parents, research suggests that formal programs do not offer any clear advantage. With the right stimulation, parents can provide the same kind of academic “head start” that preschools provide.

HOME To measure the effects of the complexity of the home environment on cognitive and academic outcomes, Bradley and Caldwell (1977, 1979) constructed the Home Observation for Mea- surement of the Environment, or HOME, scale. This instrument assesses a child’s home life, including quality of supervision and discipline; family meals; richness of language usage; availability of books, games, and discovery toys; parental displays of warmth and affection; and the variety of stimuli outside the home, like trips to the market or the park.

More positive HOME scores are associated with better academic and cognitive outcomes for all children, regardless of ethnicity or SES (Bradley et al., 1989). Just like the early language

Section 15.2Play

studies by Hart and Risley (1995) discussed in Module 9, low SES was associated with low HOME scores. However, parental responsiveness and amount of stimulation are much stron- ger predictors of outcomes than is SES. Although higher-SES parents may have the means to invest more time and money in a wider variety of resources and activities, it does not mean that SES is always a barrier to achieving the same results.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Describe how different types of early childhood learning environments may affect cogni- tive and psychosocial outcomes.

15.2 Play The stimulating environment described by Bradley and his colleagues (1989) includes a generous portion of play. Play allows children to gather information about the world, and also provides children with feedback about their abilities and characteristics. Play and peer relationships are therefore essential components of healthy psychosocial development. Con- versely, lack of playtime impedes healthy development and disproportionately affects chil- dren who face socioeconomic obstacles (Milteer et al., 2012). While playing, children learn both interpersonal skills like sharing, societal norms, and values and intrapersonal skills like self-regulation. The ways in which children begin to play by themselves and with others offers another perspective on cognitive and social advances that occur throughout childhood.

Categories of Play One way of categorizing play is by the purpose and type of stimulation it provides. Infants and toddlers engage in functional play. They enjoy repetitive activities that facilitate prac- tice with both fine and gross motor movements. There are not necessarily any goals in mind; there is just activity for its own sake. Pounding or rolling clay, running around and jumping on furniture, and playing with sand or water are all examples of functional play. It is how the majority of preschoolers spend their free time (Kantowitz & Evans, 2004).

In later preschool, children gradually become more interested in production. This change is consistent with Erikson’s stage of initiative versus guilt. Children now want sand to represent an object or idea; games have a goal; a puzzle is worked to completion; pillows and household objects are made into a shelter. These activities are indicative of constructive play. In this kind of play, repetition and exploration merge with the symbolic representations

Photodisc/Thinkstock ሁ Constructive play, like building a fort to play in,

is purposeful and produces an outcome.

Section 15.2Play

indicative of preoperational thought. For instance, children will repeatedly build a “city” out of blocks or other materials. Each time there are trials and errors, and imaginative construc- tion looks different each time play is initiated.

The preschool/early childhood years also include a fair amount of pretend play. Acting out a movie, playing house, taking an imaginary trip, and using hand puppets are examples of pretend play. Pretend play allows children to process emotions, develop language, and create inner thoughts and a rich imagination. Pretend play occurs as both a solitary and a social activ- ity and is an important milestone in development. Higher levels of pretend play are associated with increased levels of interpersonal communication and social engagement. Therefore, it makes sense that children with autism exhibit less complexity and frequency of pretend play (Hobson, Hobson, Malik, Bargiota, & Caló , 2013; Rutherford, Young, Hepburn, & Rogers, 2007).

Social Aspects of Play Another way to categorize play is by its social aspects. Mildred Parten (1932) coined the term parallel play to refer to the stage during which children play beside one another but do not jointly cooperate. For example, two 3 year olds will build separate block structures without sharing either blocks or labor. Playmates will imitate each other and talk about their pro- cesses, but they remain absorbed in their own activities and do not try to influence each other. As a percentage of time, parallel play occurs most frequently during the early preschool years.

At about 3 years of age, preschoolers soon begin to interact more with their playmates. Asso- ciative play occurs when two or more children actively engage each other but are not neces- sarily dependent on the other’s cooperation. For instance, while building with blocks, chil- dren who are playing associatively might make suggestions to each other and share unused items, but they will not construct together. When a number of children are playing together in a sandbox, playmates may enter and exit the area without notice. Roles are not defined, but social interaction is definitely becoming more sophisticated.

By the time children enter kindergarten at age 5 or so, most will engage in cooperative play. Children have roles and engage in reciprocal activities like sharing and taking turns. They cooperate to achieve a common goal. Children who are using building blocks will collaborate on a project and help each other “finish” a structure.

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : P l a y As discussed, parental variables are generally the most significant factors in early cog- nitive and psychosocial development. At first glance, the wealth of high-SES families appears to be the deciding factor in the pursuit of cognitive and psychosocial growth, but it should be clear by now that supporting a culture of learning is more important than economics.

There are simple, inexpensive, nonelectronic ways to enhance play and cognitive develop- ment in early childhood. Toddlers love the simplistic. Balls and bubbles, sand and water (and mud!) make for easy, inexpensive activities. Although play should be enjoyed in its own right, this kind of play also “teaches” about wind currents, friction, resistance, tex- ture, and so forth. Toy cars teach children about motion and gravity.

(continued)

Section 15.2Play

Playmates, even strangers at the park, encourage self-regulation, empathy, sharing, follow- ing rules, and verbal communication. Collecting leaves teaches colors, counting, and biol- ogy. It also encourages curiosity and trips to the library or the computer.

When play is restricted to only planned activities, it discourages imagination and creativ- ity, whereas free play facilitates attention and concentration. Even though a large bucket- ful of good wooden blocks or Legos may be expensive, these simple toys provide countless opportunities to experiment and understand mathematical relationships of weight, bal- ance, and length.

Paper towel rolls, boxes, and plastic bottles (that are free of sharp edges and tops that can be swallowed) can be repurposed for creative activity. In the same way that simply talk- ing provides greater growth of language, providing opportunities for play enhances every developmental domain.

Culture and Play Play is also affected by culture. Compared to individualistic cultures, in more collectivistic societies, there is more touching and cooperation, and active children are more willing to include those who are quiet (Chen, DeSouza, Chen, & Wang, 2006; Roopnarine, Hossain, Gill, & Brophy, 1994). Subcultural differences exist, as well. For example, among American pre- schoolers, those of Korean descent engage in more parallel play and less pretend play than their Anglo counterparts. However, as the children became more acculturated, they take on more of the play characteristics of Anglo children (Farver, Kim, & Lee-Shin, 1995; Farver & Lee-Shin, 2000).

Play is also quite different when we consider the environment in much of the developing world, where over half the world’s children live. In large parts of Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and other regions, children are unsupervised and left to their own devices for a great part of the day. Siblings are the primary supervisors for younger children. It is not unusual to see toddlers playing by themselves in fields or next to roads. Because there is little structure, it is typical for multiple age groups to play together, unlike in the United States and other Western societies. However, there is little research in this area, other than on the cognitive and physical effects of poverty.

Play and Cognition When children “drive a car” or “shave,” pretend play is a way for them to broaden their under- standing of the world. In elementary school, concrete thinkers pursue the order and logic that games provide. Organized sports and other competitive games allow children to feel a sense of accomplishment, too, satisfying a need for industry. Play also facilitates moral behav- ior, as children act out the consequences of different actions. During adolescence, play and games are used to facilitate hypothetico-deductive reasoning (see Section 7.1). Teenagers move beyond the immediate situation of the activity to speculate about alternative outcomes, including social consequences. Play is therefore integral to cognitive development.

It has been suggested that the structure and content of older social play has shifted due to the advancement of video games and new media technology. It is sometimes difficult for adults to embrace the richness of these cultural and social changes. Adults need to collaborate with

Section 15.3Friendships and Peer Groups

children in a playful and exploratory manner that will enhance the learning environment and bring enthusiasm to learning and social interaction. Compared to teenagers, teachers and parents may lack media awareness (e.g., YouTube, Facebook), but they can use their experi- ence and judgment to broaden thought and creativity. For example, teachers may not show as much competency as their students in posting a story on YouTube, but they are likely to be more competent in exploring how to best express ideas. In the dynamic age of digital media, advanced playfulness is required to keep youth engaged in academic pursuits (Graesser, 2013).

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Describe how different kinds of play integrate with cognitive and physical development.

15.3 Friendships and Peer Groups Play contributes to the process of building relationships both inside and outside of the fam- ily. Most toddlers and preschoolers develop favored associations based on shared interest in toys and activities. Not surprisingly, older preschoolers socialize more and have more friends than their younger counterparts. However, even for young children, friends are distinct from nonfriends. Interactions with friends occur more frequently and are more complex than are interactions with nonfriends (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). Throughout childhood, friends are more likely than nonfriends to have conflicts with one another and are also more likely to resolve them positively. Perhaps this outcome is due to the increased investment that friends have, since nonfriends have less to lose if they simply walk away (Hartup & Abecassis, 2002).

Friendships Friendship competency is associated with other successes. Children who are the most skilled socially in preschool also have the most friends in kindergarten and are the most well-adjusted. Conversely, children who are argumentative and aggressive and have poor self- regulation skills generally have fewer friends. Negative social outcomes are also associated with less classroom participation, poorer learning, and less overall enjoyment of school (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Eggum-Wilkens et al., 2014; Rudasill, Niehaus, Buhs, & White, 2013).

During middle and late childhood, relationships gradually change from a focus on a “handy playmate” or a physical partner to friendship based on mutual trust and helpfulness (Damon, 1977). The early importance of physical interaction is joined by an increased focus on personal qualities. These advancements coincide with the continuing development of self- concept and awareness of the needs of others. Preference for peer companions over adults accelerates, and reciprocated kindness becomes an increasingly important part of friendship.

During adolescence, the structure and expectations of friendships continue to change. There is a transition from an orientation toward activity to one based on communication. No longer do friends always have an activity in common. Now they share thoughts, hypothesize about future goals, commiserate, and become emotionally intimate. Self-disclosure increases as teenagers pursue loyalty, affection, and psychological closeness (Damon, 1977; Hartup & Abe- cassis, 2002). The benefits of positive friendships are again reflected in behavioral outcomes.

Section 15.3Friendships and Peer Groups

Especially among boys, adolescents who are more empathic and positive have better qual- ity friendships; those with a poorer understanding of reciprocity and other friendship needs have a higher risk of delinquency (Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Thomson, 2010; Walsh & Kur- dek, 1984).

Formal operational thought is reflected in adolescent friendships, too. Recall that abstract ideas like moral values and political views are not really formulated yet in middle childhood because of the nature of concrete thought. In adolescence, though, friends tend to be alike in level of psychosocial maturity, educational values, political beliefs, and moral behavior, includ- ing willingness to take drugs and break the law (Akers, Jones, & Coyl, 1998; Jones, Vaterlaus, Jackson, & Morrill, 2013; Schwartz & Pantin, 2006).

Peer Groups Peer associations are reflected not just in individual friendships. Before the end of elementary school, children begin to have an increased desire for belongingness and organize themselves around peer groups. Members of the same group choose each other based on intelligence and achievement, sex, personality, and activity level (Mariano & Harton, 2005; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Peer groups are also similar by race, ethnicity, and SES. However, the most important factor in that regard might be proximity. Adolescents and (especially) children naturally gravitate toward those who share demographic characteristics because they are close by, not necessarily because they are racially or ethnically similar.

Beginning in preschool, peer groups are used to make judgments about relative competency. Children become increasingly aware of how they compare to others. When children do not have an accurate idea of their abilities, they make social comparisons, further defining a sense of self. If children think they compare favorably to their peer group in various skill areas, then self-esteem improves. When social comparisons reveal shortcomings, self-esteem suffers, especially when there is a lack of parental close- ness (Birkeland, Breivik, & Wold, 2014).

In early adolescence, peer groups include cliques, groups of about 3 to 10 members. They share interests and activi- ties, and they “hang out” together. Cliques are segregated initially by sex and are more common among groups of girls. By mid-adolescence, though, it is not unusual to see mixed-sex cliques. There are “jocks,” “skaters,” “druggies,” and others. Those outside the clique can view cliques either positively or negatively; members use them for social refer- encing and, therefore, for part of identity formation (Hen- rich, Kupermine, Sack, Blatt, & Leadbeater, 2000; Martin, Bruner, Eys, & Spink, 2014).

Cliques are more exclusive than larger, more loosely con- structed crowds. Crowd members do not always socialize together; crowds are less personal than cliques and are based more on reputation and general- ized perception of activities rather than common interests. For instance, “nerds” or “brainiacs”

B. Tanaka/Photographer’s Choice/ Getty Images

ሁ While crowd members share a generalized reputation, members of cliques more specifically share interests and activities.

Section 15.4Peer Acceptance and Status

are not necessarily a clique, but they share values and a reputation for academic skill. Like cliques, members use each other to assess group norms and guide identity. Therefore, crowds are associated with both protective factors and risky behavior (Bobakova, Geckova, Klein, van Dijk, & Reijneveld, 2013; Verkooijen, de Vries, & Nielsen, 2007). As college students know, cliques and crowds become much less prominent after high school.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W What is the effect of crowds and cliques on development? What types of consequences might there be for children who do not identify with cliques or crowds?

15.4 Peer Acceptance and Status Some children are well liked, whereas others become unpopular or withdrawn. Adolescents may pursue unconventional behaviors or try out new groups as they continue the process of forging an identity. Peer acceptance has great impact on psychosocial development. How a child is viewed by peers can often be used to predict other behaviors. Differences in popular- ity are reflected in what developmental psychologists call status. Though it may appear obvi- ous to peers why a particular person is well liked or not, as scientists we want to systemati- cally examine how judgments about peers are formed. In the most common method of assessment, children are asked to nominate peers they like and do not like and to identify who they believe are the most and least popular peers.

Status profiles include popular children, who are academically and socially competent. These children typically communicate well and show leadership ability. They tend to move in and out of playgroups easily and also help set the rules for group behavior. The majority of popular children tend to be kind and cooperative and engage in more prosocial behavior than their peers (Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993).

A smaller group of popular children are more belligerent. They are identified as “cool” and “tough,” are athletic and, as a group, are below average academically (Rodkin & Rois- man, 2010). Popular children in general are more demonstrative in two commonly iden- tified types of aggression, overt aggression and relational aggression. Overt aggres- sion refers to direct verbal or physical con- frontation, whereas relational aggression includes behaviors that are damaging to relationships, like spreading rumors and excluding peers (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). It may seem counterintuitive that popular children are aggressive, but perhaps they use it against those who threaten their high social status. It has been found, for instance,

Blend Images/Thinkstock ሁ What makes some people more or less popular

than others?

Section 15.4Peer Acceptance and Status

that youth who are perceived as popular are strategically both aggressive and cooperative in order to manipulate peers and retain high status (Kuryluk, Cohen, & Audley-Piotrowski, 2011).

Rejected children receive many negative and few positive nominations from their peers. They fall into two types: Disruptive, impulsive, and aggressive, or simply withdrawn. They are much less socially competent than popular children and have fewer friends (Newcomb et al., 1993). Aggressive types are more hostile than others and prone to physical violence and later delinquency (Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2010). Research on withdrawn types of rejected children has found that they tend to “hover” over other children and then choose inopportune times to enter the group. This behavior violates rules and is therefore disruptive. Rejected children also show more emotional problems and depression than others, and have the lowest cognitive measures of any status (Bierman, Kalvin, & Heinrichs, 2014; Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990).

The behavior of controversial children represents a combination of traits from popular and rejected children. They receive many positive but also many negative ratings, matching their mixed behavior; they are the least homogeneous of the status groups (Newcomb et al., 1993). Controversial children are the most aggressive of any status, but they typically demonstrate prosocial behavior that is on par with popular children. Controversial children are more skilled socially and cognitively than rejected children, perhaps compensating for behaviors that typi- cally would be rejected. Like aggressive popular children, controversial children will some- times engage in manipulative and calculated relational aggression to sustain a higher social status (DeRosier & Thomas, 2003). Their above-average social skills lead them to have more romantic partners in early adolescence. However, they also are more likely to be influenced by the negative behaviors of those romantic partners, including delinquency (Miller et al., 2009).

As the label implies, neglected children receive relatively few positive or negative nomina- tions. They play alone more often than others and therefore are relatively less aggressive and less disruptive than other statuses (Hymel, Vaillancourt, McDougall, & Renshaw, 2004; New- comb et al., 1993). Compared to rejected children, neglected children are significantly more socially competent, though they have lower than average scores of sociability. Neglected chil- dren represent the least stable status. It may last only until children become more comfort- able in their surroundings. Although neglected children constitute a distinct classification, there is no foundation to suggest that neglected children represent a strong at-risk group. They may appear less social and more withdrawn, but they have a relatively low incidence of depression (Rubin et al., 2006).

In many ways, neglected children resemble average children. This final category is made up of children who receive some negative and some positive nominations, but not signifi- cantly more of either (as in controversial children). Measures of sociability, withdrawal, and aggression are sandwiched between those of neglected and popular children, but remain sig- nificantly different. Though a distinct category, the behavior of these children is average— socially, cognitively, and in both prosocial and disruptive behaviors (Newcomb et al., 1993).

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Explain how children come to be associated with each of the five peer statuses. How might you differentiate among statuses if you were observing children on a playground or in a classroom?

Section 15.5Bullying

15.5 Bullying In general, children and teenagers of all ages prefer relationships with peers who are kind, help- ful, friendly, and complementary. As children move beyond concrete thinking into adolescence, they add humor, loyalty, and intimacy as important relationship attributes. Young children and teenagers alike tend to want to avoid peers who are aggressive, critical, and dishonest.

In contrast, bullying occurs when children feel they cannot defend themselves against repeated aggression. The aggressive incidents can be verbal or physical and always involve a power imbalance (Olweus, 2010). If a child is injured by a peer of about the same strength (as in a fight) or is not victimized repeatedly, psychologists do not define it as bullying, which can create controversy in some antibullying campaigns (see, e.g., Finkelhor, Turner, & Hamby, 2012). About one-quarter to one-third of children are involved in bullying behaviors and about 10% are victimized on a regular basis, a figure that has remained fairly steady even as increased resources have been committed to combating the problem (Isolan, Salum, Osowski, Zottis, & Manfro, 2013; Kim, Boyce, Koh, & Leventhal, 2009; Nansel et al., 2001).

Demonstrating the importance of examining contextual variables in bullying, children are more likely to become both victims and bullies when they come from chaotic or dysfunc- tional family environments. Before acting out in school, bullies are more likely to have been maltreated at home. Intervention programs that focus on forming friendships have been par- ticularly successful for these children (Fox & Boulton, 2006; Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 2000). Evidence is fairly consistent that higher parental involvement is associated with less bul- lying overall (e.g., Abdirahman, Fleming, & Jacobsen, 2013; Bowes, Maughan, Caspi, Moffitt, & Arseneault, 2010).

Types of Bullying Involvement Although it would seem that bullying and victimization are mutually exclusive, they are not. In addition to bullies and victims, up to one-half of all victims are also bullies. Though evi- dence is not conclusive, bully-victims are considered a distinctive group that has been found to have the highest risk of academic and psychosocial problems (Isolan et al., 2013; Juvonen, Graham & Schuster 2003; Leiner et al., 2014).

Both bullying and victimization are associ- ated with a host of physical and psychologi- cal problems, most notably, anxiety, depres- sion, and suicide (Chang et al., 2014; DeSmet et al., 2014; van Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014). Victims particularly are lonely, have lower self-esteem than average, experience more distress, and share traits with rejected children, like school avoidance (Paul & Cil- lessen, 2003; Wang, Nansel & Iannotti, 2011). One British longitudinal study found that adults who had been victimized as children remained at risk for a wide range of negative psychosocial, physical, and economic factors five decades after being victimized (Takizaw, Maughan, & Arseneault, 2014).

iStock/Thinkstock ሁ Bullying does not always involve direct

aggression.

Section 15.5Bullying

Cyberbullying A newer form of peer victimization is cyberbullying, or online Internet victimization. It involves a high degree of psychological violence and is probably influ- enced sometimes by its potentially anonymous nature (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). Cyberbullying was a rela- tively infrequent phenomenon only a few years ago, accounting for barely 3% of reported cases in 2011. Probably due to the proliferation of smartphones in schools, recent data show that between one-quarter and one-third of secondary students are involved, as victims, bullies, or both, a proportion that is now consistent with in-person numbers. These figures are somewhat consistent in France, Taiwan, Turkey, the United States, and elsewhere (Chang et al., 2014; Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Huré, & Rusch, 2013). Being victimized online is often an extension of in-person victimization, as up to 96% of online victims have reported being victimized in person. Therefore, it is not considered a unique phenomenon, just a different way to deliver aggression (Hertz & David-Ferdon, 2011; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, Ybarra, & Turner, 2011).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : H o w D o Y o u S t o p B u l l y i n g ? After 13-year-old Megan Meier was repeatedly bullied online by a neighbor, she commit- ted suicide in 2006. Since then, states have moved to pass laws against cyberbullying. As of the middle of 2014, fifteen states had either passed laws or had pending legislation. Many more local jurisdictions have taken action as well. Schools can institute their own policies, though courts have had a difficult time reconciling the balance between what is considered free speech and what is harmful behavior.

There is potentially some gray area in the definition of bullying. For instance, given the “no-tolerance” edict of many schools, how would you differentiate between what may be acceptable “trash talking” in an organized high school athletic contest and what is consid- ered bullying?

Interventions Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus has been at the forefront of intervention programs since his pioneering research on bullies began in the 1970s. Most prevention efforts continue to be based on his Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), which focuses on improving the social climate at school and teaching adults how to get involved when they see bullying behav- ior (Olweus, 1993). Programs generally attempt to increase awareness, promote the under- standing of consequences, and teach children how to actively defend peers who are targeted.

Unfortunately, little evidence indicates that current methods significantly stop bullying on a large scale (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava; 2008; Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ana- niadou, 2004). Although many modern versions of OBPP include community components, it is suggested that bullying is better understood within the larger contextual view, like Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model. For instance, we see that the social contextual

Critical Thinking President Obama’s secretary of education, Arne Duncan (2010), said, “Simply put, we think in this country, bullying should not exist. We need to work…together as fast as we can to eliminate this issue.” Is “elimination” or the pursuit of “zero tolerance” of bullying a reasonable goal to pursue?

Bullying Section 5.5

environment affects individual characteristics of aggression, which are involved in bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012). That is, children growing up in certain environments are socialized to be more aggressive, and that aggression is sometimes channeled into bullying. Instead of implementing policies that focus on awareness and consequences of bullying, others suggest there be more collaborative community efforts. These could include building relationships with law enforcement, strengthening communication between schools and home, and hold- ing parent meetings and trainings. Interventions that consistently focus on the social ecologi- cal context appear to be more scientifically supported (Hong & Espelage, 2012).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : R e s p o n d i n g t o B u l l y i n g Though the first line of defense for young children to defend against bullies is to report incidents to an adult, it could be argued that the preferred method is the one that works best. Though educators and psychologists rarely want to recommend it, fighting back against bullies has proved effective. Black, Weinles, and Washington (2010) asked 2,615 children in a high-risk group of children in kindergarten through eighth grade about their experiences with bullying. Half of the students reported being victimized at least twice a month in the preceding two months.

Only 42% felt confident telling an adult, and barely half found success in doing so. By con- trast, the most successful method turned out to be fighting back. And by a wide margin, more students used that technique than any other. Making a safety plan and telling a peer or an adult at home were other successful methods, but students simply did not feel as con- fident employing those options. Other less successful strategies included ignoring the bully and making a joke.

These results suggest that school professionals and other adults need to regard peer aggression seriously and must respond with authority. If children do not think their prob- lems will be listened to, they will resort to behaviors that may put them in harm’s way. Especially in elementary school, there is no doubt that children should tell an adult after being threatened or harmed. But adults also need to be sensitive about taking reports seri- ously and making sure they empower children instead of forsaking them.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Classify types of peer victimization. Identify the deciding factors that would persuade you to intervene in a bullying situation.

Section 15.6Substance Use

15.6 Substance Use As is the case with antisocial activity, adolescents who use alcohol and other psychoactive substances (chemicals that alter brain and other central nervous system functions) tend to be attracted to friends who engage in similar behaviors (Poulin, Kiesner, Pedersen, & Dish- ion, 2011). Most information regarding substance use comes from comprehensive nationwide surveys that are sent to middle and high school students. However, like surveys that ask students about sex, caution is advised whenever results are interpreted. There is likely to be both underreporting and overreporting of some infor- mation. However, recall from Module 2 that we never completely know how strongly the data may be biased.

Tobacco Tobacco use in the United States has continued the mostly downward trend that began in the 1960s. Both literally and figuratively, smokers in the United States are becoming outcasts. It is harder to smoke openly due to local laws, and smoking is becoming prohibitively expensive for many individuals. Nevertheless, many children still take up the habit. In the United States, more girls than boys smoke, but worldwide, sex differences vary by country. Unfortunately, tobacco companies continue to distribute free cigarettes and market their branded merchan- dise to schoolchildren outside the United States, contributing to a worldwide problem (Eaton et al., 2012; Salawu, Danburam, Batulu, & Agbo, 2010; Warren et al., 2008).

In the United States, about 16% of adolescents are referred to as “current users” of cigarettes, but only 5.6% smoked on 20 of the previous 30 days. Both of these figures continue to decline. By contrast, use of smokeless tobacco has seen a slight uptick in recent years after nearly two decades of declines. More than 8% of 12th graders have used smokeless tobacco in the past 30 days, rising from a low of 6.1% achieved in 2006. Although nicotine produces biological and psychological dependency relatively quickly, at least among light or social smokers, there does appear to be some early immunity from addiction (Eaton et al., 2012; Kann et al., 2014).

Marijuana Unlike cigarette usage, trends for most psychoactive drugs have tracked a curvilinear pat- tern. They have followed a consistent rise throughout the 1990s, declined during most of the 2000s, and then began to rise a bit, as shown in Figure 15.2. The exception has been mari- juana. Regular use of it among high school students increased substantially in the early 1990s (15 to 25%) and has since remained somewhat consistent. It continues to be the most com- monly used illicit drug; about a quarter of high school students reported using it in the past month and nearly half have tried it by the time they graduate high school (Eaton et al., 2012; Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2014; Kann et al., 2014).

Critical Thinking If you are collecting data on drug use among adolescents, how might differences in SES between schools affect the accuracy of the information?

Section 15.6Substance Use

Figure 15.2: Trends in illicit drug use—combined grades 8, 10, 12 ሁ After peaking in around 1980, substance use decreased, then rose again in the 1990s. Use of most

substances is currently trending down after a brief period of increase.

Percentage who used any illicit drug in lifetime

Percentage who used any illicit drug in previous 12 months

8th grade

12th grade

10th grade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20 02

19 92

19 94

20 08

20 04

Year 19

96 20

06 19

98 20

00

P er

ce n

ta g

e

20 10

20 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20 02

19 92

19 94

20 08

20 04

Year 19

96 20

06 19

98 20

00 P

er ce

n ta

g e

20 10

20 12

20 14

20 14

Source: Adapted with permission from the Monitoring the Future study, University of Michigan.

There is also a higher persistence rate of use for mari- juana than for other drugs. That is, among students who have ever used marijuana, 57% use it again within the next 30 days. The persistence rate of other illicit sub- stances ranges from about 15% to 35%. Undoubtedly, adolescents feel marijuana is relatively safe compared to other so-called hard drugs (Kann et al., 2014).

Prescription Drug Use and Inhalants Parents and other adults are not always aware that pre- scription drug use is more common than the combined use of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Though there are some geographic differences, overall the most popular illicit prescription drugs on high school cam- puses are Xanax, OxyContin, Adderall, and Ritalin. These drugs can be especially concerning since they are found in so many homes (Kann et al., 2014).

Even more than prescription drugs, inhalants are particu- larly difficult for adults to securely monitor. Many ordi- nary products (legally sold to children) can be sniffed (or “huffed”) to get “high.” Younger adolescents prefer to sniff

more easily obtainable products like lighter fluid, gasoline, glues, and solvents. Older teens often graduate to nitrous oxide, a drug often found in dance clubs.

Bananastock/Thinkstock ሁ Marijuana use among teens has

remained somewhat consistent since the 1990s.

Section 15.6Substance Use

Alcohol Adolescents consume more alcohol than any other psychoactive substance (see Figure 15.3). About 35% of adolescents are active drinkers, defined as having had at least one drink in the previous 30 days. Perhaps more concerning is the 21% of students who have been binge drinking during the past 30 days. Binge drinking occurs when blood alcohol content (BAC) is elevated to .08 over an hour or so. For most people, this is equivalent to four or five drinks. Binge drinking in high school is associated with an increase in traffic accidents, antisocial behavior, crime, and poor health (Dawson, Goldstein, Chou, Ruan, & Grant, 2008; Johnston, O’Malley, Backman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Also concerning is the 22% of students who had been a passenger in a car at least once in the previous 30 days with someone who had been drinking (Kann et al., 2014).

Figure 15.3: Percentage of high school students who have used alcohol, cigarettes, and various illicit substances

Ever used

Current use

P er

ce n

ta g

e

0

40

60

20

80

Al co

ho l

Ci ga

re tte

s

M ar

iju an

a

Ille ga

l p re

sc rip

tio n

dr ug

s

In ha

lan ts

Ec sta

cy (M

DM A)

M et

ha m

ph et

am ine

s

An y i

llic it d

ru g

us e

ot he

r t ha

n m

ar iju

an a

An y i

llic it d

ru g

us e

Source: Adapted from Eaton et al., 2010; Johnston et al., 2011; SAMHSA, 2010.

Risk Factors From a psychosocial perspective, the use of drugs and alcohol can arrest the development of identity. When users get high, they may not be able to integrate all the different parts of identity that we have discussed. That is, because intoxication produces a “new” personality, development of the “true” personality is suspended temporarily (Ulman & Paul, 2006). Occa- sional use will not necessarily impact socioemotional development, but the negative effect of compulsive use epitomizes the interaction of biology, genetics, and the environment that has been a constant theme throughout this text.

Section 15.7Media and the Internet

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : I d e n t i f y i n g A d d i c t i o n How do you tell if someone is addicted? Professionals think they always know, but diagno- ses are usually subjective and definitions of addiction are fairly ambiguous. Professionals use terms like compulsive, repetitive, and dependent to identify problematic use. Those words may seem perfectly descriptive, but when you consider that they also refer to the way you put on shoes, eat lunch every day, or watch the same television show, it gets a bit unclear. Still not convinced? When people crave cocaine, are they addicted? How about when they crave a cheeseburger? Further, physiological reactions like tolerance and with- drawal are sometimes apparent in addictions, but other times they are not.

It is therefore important to adopt objective measures that can identify an addiction. Five areas of concern stand out:

• Health—Does using interfere with health, including nutrition or sleep? Does use persist, for example, even when cocaine has damaged nose tissue?

• Law—Has the person been involved with legal issues because of substance use?

• Finances—Does the user purchase drugs instead of paying bills?

• Relationships—Have relationships changed or disappeared because of use?

• School/Work—Has the user missed work or school on more than one occasion due to use?

Assessment in these areas can be adapted to assess other addictions, too, like video game playing, sex, and gambling.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Describe the trends in substance use among adolescents and potential effects on identity development.

15.7 Media and the Internet As noted previously, the media also have a strong effect on identity development and behav- ior. In addition to the content of media, the sheer time that children spend in front of a screen can detract from other valuable activities, like athletics and conversations. Conversely, media also provide a potential outlet for expression. In this final section, we address these issues as we discuss the effects of older forms of media (e.g., television) along with electronic stimuli that were not even invented until just a few years ago.

Television and Screen Time The American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) strongly discourages children younger than 2 from watching television because it harms language development and interferes with other necessary aspects of brain development. Strong evidence suggests that television

Section 15.7Media and the Internet

limits early language development and further stifles psychosocial and cognitive develop- ment in general (Christakis et al., 2009; Duch, Fisher, Ensari, & Harrington, 2013; LeBlanc et al., 2012). Nevertheless, in the United States, more than two-thirds of children younger than 2 years are exposed to daily television (Strasburger, Jordon, & Donnerstein, 2010). In addition, phones have rapidly become the screen of choice for a majority of adolescents. By the middle of 2013, 70% of teens aged 13–17 owned a smartphone, representing the fastest growing demographic. That compares with rates of 36% in 2011 and 58% in 2012 (Nielsen, 2013).

Studies have shown that youth between the ages of 8 and 18 spend an average of more than 7 hours a day using screen media, though it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the amount of time spent on phones and tablets. While 93% of teens have access to a computer at home, a quarter of teenagers use smartphones as their primary mode of online access. In general, adolescents spend more time in front of screens than in any other activity, including night- time sleep. Increased screen activity is associated with a lack of physical activity, a lack of sleep, and a greater propensity for overall health problems (Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Rusch, & Hazouard, 2013; Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010; Staiano, Harrington, Broyles, Gupta, & Katzmarzyk, 2013; Strasburger et al., 2010).

Although the Internet exposes children to potential predators, prevalence estimates have held steady recently, possibly due to increased awareness (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). Media involvement in general encourages a sedentary lifestyle. The association between media con- sumption and weight gain, including food choices, has been well established for decades (e.g., Cameron et al., 2013; Coon & Tucker, 2002; Dietz & Gortmaker, 1985; Falbe et al., 2013). In one study of 674 students who met professional recommendations for screen time, activity level, and sleeping, 16% of boys and 9% of girls were overweight or obese. But only 9.2% of children met the recommendations. Among the children who failed to meet any of the recom- mendations, 53% of boys and 43% of girls were obese, a fairly dramatic difference (Laurson, Lee, Gentile, Walsh, & Eisenmann, 2014).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) and the Canadian Paediatric Society (2012) urge in their policy statements that video games, cell phones, and televisions should be left out of bedrooms and turned off during dinner. However, these guidelines may not be realistic for most families, since such tremendous overlap exists among traditional screen entertainment, social networking, and other media like video games and Internet videos. A recent study attempted to separate outcomes related to time spent with video games, Internet, television, and book reading. Book reading and moderate use of newer forms of media were associated with healthy outcomes. By contrast, heavy use of the Internet and video games was associated with social withdrawal and depression. Whereas books specifically supported academic performance, television was especially detri- mental to academic outcomes (Romer, Bagdasarov, & More, 2013).

Critical Thinking Back in the 1980s when video game sales first became hugely popular, a case was made that children learned important hand-eye coordina- tion skills when they played games such as Pong and Pac-man. An opposing argument stated that video games were fine for entertainment but that they should not be viewed as motor enhancements because most outdoor activities probably taught better skills. Today, of course, video game controllers are much more sophisti- cated. Do you think learning how to use them is a necessary skill?

Section 15.7Media and the Internet

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : T o d d l e r s a n d T e l e v i s i o n When our children were toddlers, we had a routine of watching one short sing-along video in the evening before we read to them. And there were times they watched television, even before age 2 (gasp!). But rather than its being a crutch, television was usually a planned, limited activity.

Like most indulgences, I think a realistic approach to media exposure is prudent; mod- eration and motivation are key. Are children put in front of a screen in order to provide another short activity to break up the day, or do parents simply want the kids out of the way for a couple of hours so that they too can entertain themselves?

You will not damage an 18-month-old for life in 30 minutes. However, the issue becomes one of consistency. When parents or their children become dependent on media for enter- tainment, the number of activities that engage children will contract. The more they “watch,” the less children “do,” and passive behavior does not promote either physical or cognitive development.

Internet Addiction Increased screen time has led to increased con- cerns internationally about Internet addiction among youth (e.g., Kalmus, Blinka, & Ólafsson, 2013; King, Delfabbro, Zwaans, & Kaptsis, 2013; Yu & Shek, 2013). Literature suggests that gam- ing and Internet addiction affects between 2% and 16% of youth who regularly use the Inter- net; it is more common in boys. Like other addictions, it is associated with depression and anxiety and lower self-esteem; it is often found to be associated with less family cohesion and reduced parental responsiveness (Li, Garland, & Howard, 2014). Research into the disorder is accelerating throughout the world’s peer- reviewed journals, but it was not included in the 2013 revision of the Diagnostic and Statis- tical Manual of Mental Disorders, the psychol- ogy standard for identifying mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Problems remain in agreeing on diagnostic criteria and measurement instruments. (Wondering if you are addicted to the Internet? See Focus on Behavior: Identify- ing Addiction.)

Social Media The topic of social media brings this module together, as social media are now an integral part of peer-to-peer relations, schools, media, and society. Various texting

Tatiana Gladskikh/iStock/Thinkstock ሁ Mental health professionals have had

increasing concerns about the effects of prolonged screen time among youth.

Critical Thinking Under what specific circumstances would you recommend that parents install spyware on their children’s computers? At what age should adolescents be allowed free rein on the computer?

Epilogue

applications and other social media like Facebook and Twitter are no doubt key components of psychosocial development. They provide easy tools for children to engage in group and individual interactions, though they can also be a source of alienation and ostracism.

From a research perspective, conclusions may be fleeting, as popular technology evolves rap- idly. For instance, in just one year between 2011 and 2012, the use of MySpace among ado- lescents declined from 24% to 7%, while the early adoption of Instagram sent its usage from 0% to 11% (Pew Research, 2013b). However, Davis (2012) has suggested that digital media in general are used to fulfill identity needs of belongingness and autonomy, just like in past generations. They simply provide a different means to do so.

In much the same way that online courses provide opportunities for disclosure that may not exist in face-to-face classes, digital media may provide an extra measure of safety to reach out and form new friendships. Far from the negative stereotype of sensationalistic teens who plot evil deeds in front of a computer, the use of technology might offer an additional outlet for forming friendships and relieving adolescent depression and anxiety (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). In a comprehensive study involving adolescents from six European countries, heavier use of social networking sites was associated with greater social competence among older (though not younger) adolescents. The larger issue might be the time that it takes to stay connected to so many contacts, as heavier use was also found to be associated with lower academic standing (Tsitsika et al., 2014).

In focus groups, teens have also discussed the proliferation of trivial posts even though there has been a parallel increase in self-disclosure (Pew Research, 2013b). Adolescent users lament the stress involved in frequently checking how many people “like” them and maintaining their social reputation, but they fear being isolated if they stay away. The average adolescent user had 425 Facebook friends in 2012, which can contribute to healthy development, but as the module prologue suggests, it can contribute to emotional distance, as well.

Epilogue The three domains of child development prepare us for our adult roles, through which we continue to grow and change. Physical transitions leading up to puberty signal readiness for parenthood; cognitive transitions culminate in high school graduation and preparation to guide the next generation; and social changes may include moving out and going to college, beginning a career, or starting a family.

Traditionally, the stage that follows adolescence has been referred to as early adulthood, lasting from about 20 until about 40 years of age. More recently, lifespan developmentalists and schol- ars have noticed that young adults in industrialized countries have undergone a social change. Compared to previous generations, we often postpone the commitments of marriage and par- enting. Instead, there is often an extension of Marcia’s moratorium status, as young adults con- tinue to explore goals related to school, career, and family. For this reason, a new developmental stage has been proposed, called emerging adulthood, which lasts until perhaps 25 or 30 years of age. Just as the stages of preschool and adolescence did not really exist 150 years ago, emerg- ing adulthood extends the idea that development is continually evolving, both academically and individually. You may feel that you have come to the end of a journey, studying how children develop, but I hope also that this text and course reflect the idea that your development and that of the world around you continues to emerge. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits.

—RM

Summary and Resources

Summary and Resources • Results of research on early childhood education are largely inconclusive. Many pro-

grams exist, but the common denominator in later school success seems to be more strongly related to SES rather than to specific types of preschool programs.

• A number of categories of play predict stages of psychosocial development. Play is important physical, cognitive, and psychosocial development. Research points to definitive differences between the play activities of boys and girls, a finding that is consistent with other aspects of psychosocial development.

• Children and especially adolescents join cliques and crowds and make social com- parisons in an effort to explore identity. Children fall into patterns of behavior that reflect their status, which often predicts a particular trajectory of psychosocial development.

• To measure peer status, children are asked to nominate peers they like and do not like and those they believe are the most and least popular. This method has resulted in the identification of a number of distinct peer statuses that are associated with specific outcomes.

• Some children fall into patterns of bullying and victimization. Cyberbullying appears to be an extension of in-person bullying, but it occurs online, where there can be more anonymity. Though intervention efforts have accelerated recently, research has so far not identified programs that are consistently successful.

• The use of cigarettes among adolescents has declined steadily for many years. In contrast, use of most psychoactive substances has followed a curvilinear pattern. Marijuana is a notable exception, however, as its use appears rather steady after increasing markedly in the 1990s.

• Television is no longer the only type of media that impacts development. Overall, an excess quantity of screen time appears to be a singular variable that has a negative effect on development.

Key Terms associative play A kind of play in which children interact with each other but are not dependent on each other’s cooperation. Occurs beginning at about age 3 years.

average children Children who overall demonstrate traits that do not resemble either popular or rejected children, but instead represent a distinct middle-of-the- road group.

binge drinking At least five drinks in a short time (within 1–2 hours). For girls and women, the definition is often four drinks.

bullying A pattern of aggressive behavior directed at specific children.

clique A group of about 3 to 10 members who share specific interests and activities.

constructive play Play that involves a pur- poseful outcome, like a construction.

controversial children A status indicative of children who have traits of both popular and rejected children.

cooperative play A kind of play that includes mutual activities like taking turns and sharing materials and activities. Notice- able around the time of kindergarten.

crowd A large, loosely organized group of people who engage in many of the same activities.

cyberbullying, or online Internet victim- ization A form of bullying that takes place through online chat rooms, social network- ing sites, or other Internet sources.

Summary and Resources

Web Resources See links below for additional information on topics discussed in the chapter.

Blood Alcohol Calculator

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

Bullying

www.stopbullying.gov/index.html

emerging adulthood The period that bridges adolescence and early adulthood. A relatively new concept that refers to young adults who have not yet solidified future plans related to career, education, and marriage.

functional play Simple, repetitive play typi- cal of infants and toddlers.

Head Start A U.S. government–sponsored preschool program designed to offer edu- cation and health benefits to low-income preschoolers and their parents.

HOME Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. A psychological inven- tory for families with children that assesses the quality of social, emotional, and cogni- tive support in the home.

Montessori method A child-centered approach to education that focuses on self- directed learning.

neglected children A social status for chil- dren who receive few positive or negative nominations from their peers because they are simply ignored on scales of popularity.

overt aggression Verbal or physical confrontation.

parallel play A kind of play in which chil- dren play next to each other but for the most part do not engage each other.

peer groups A social group made up of children or adolescents of equal status and usually organized around similar interests.

popular children A peer status in which children receive many nominations for being well liked and few nominations for being disliked. This status is associated with aca- demic and social competence.

pretend play Play that involves make- believe activities.

psychoactive substances Chemicals that alter brain and other central nervous system functions.

Reggio Emilia A child-centered preschool philosophy that centers on collaborative learning and usually includes community support and a requirement of parental involvement.

rejected children A status indicative of children who get few nominations for popu- larity and are not identified as well liked.

relational aggression Deliberate aggres- sion that uses rumors, attacks social status, or otherwise undermines relationships.

social comparisons When children define their abilities or self-concept by comparing themselves to peers.

status Social competence and likeability, as indicated by peers’ ratings of behavior.

Summary and Resources

Canadian Paediatric Society

https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cps.ca/document/312/abridged_e.pdf?AWSAccessKey Id=AKIAIQDIKLPWFMPMSEAA&Expires=2145934800&Signature=HqPcm%2B%2 B9PSBDAF%2BHa%2FYBgQ2%2FmC0%3D

CDC Youth Online: High School YRBS (Comprehensive Nationwide Surveys)

http://nccd.cdc.gov/YouthOnline/App/Default.aspx

It Gets Better Project

http://www.itgetsbetter.org/

Megan Meier

http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/megans-story.html

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd/Pages/overview.aspx

Relational Aggression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irWLOoMuFvo&feature=related